Preamble

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

AYR BURGH ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.

Read the Third time, and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRAZIL (NEUTRALITY REGULATIONS).

Sir Malcolm Robertson: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) whether the neutrality regulations of Brazil in regard to belligerent merchant shipping are the same as those which were enforced during the last war while Brazil was still a neutral country;
(2) whether, as the Brazilian Neutrality Regulations of 1914–15 effectively prevented the departure of belligerent merchantmen from Brazilian ports for the sole purpose of fuelling and provisioning belligerent men-of-war and commerce raiders, thus using those ports as bases for naval operations, any steps have been taken to induce neutral countries to adopt these or similar regulations during the present war?

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Butler): The neutrality regulations promulgated by the Brazilian Government on the outbreak of the present war are not textually identical with those promulgated by the Brazilian Government on 4th August, 1914, but their provisions are similar. I am sending copies of both sets of regulations to my right hon. Friend. The neutrality regulations issued by other neutral Governments have generally followed the Thirteenth Hague Convention, Article 5 of which forbids belligerents to use neutral ports and waters as a base of naval operations. This is a matter to which His Majesty's Government have, of course, devoted, and will continue to devote the most careful attention, and any departure

from the established rules of international law would no doubt form the subject of representations by His Majesty's Government. The provisions of the regulations issued by neutral Governments in the present war, have, generally speaking, been of a satisfactory nature in this respect.

Sir M. Robertson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that after the original neutrality regulations, issued on 4th August, 1914, Brazil issued subsequent regulations which effectively prevented any belligerent merchantman leaving a Brazilian port solely for the purpose of provisioning belligerent cruisers?

Mr. Butler: I am aware of the position, and I am sending my right hon. Friend copies of the two sets of regulations, so that be may be able to compare them and reach his own conclusions.

Oral Answers to Questions — TANGIER.

Mr. Cocks: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make a statement on the position at Tangier?

Mr. Mander: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now able to state the situation in the international zone of Tangier caused by recent acts of the Spanish Government?

Mr. Butler: On 3rd November the Officer Commanding the Spanish troops in Tangier published a notice stating that by reason of the present situation the Committee of Control, the Legislative Assembly, and the Mixed Bureau of Information would cease to function and that he himself would take charge of the Zone of Tangier under the title of Governor and as delegate of the Spanish High Commissioner in Morocco. On 5th November His Majesty's Ambassador at. Madrid was instructed to record a formal protest in regard to this Spanish action undertaken without any consultation with the other Governments interested in the International Régime, and to reserve all the rights of His Majesty's Government under the international instruments of 1923 and 1928, which govern the international administration and provide for the neutrality of the Tangier Zone. It is understood that the majority of the


other Governments concerned in the International Régime at Tangier have also lodged protests with the Spanish Government. His Majesty's Government appreciate the importance of Spanish interests at Tangier, as was shown by their attitude in regard to the occupation of the Zone by Spanish military forces last June. His Majesty's Ambassador has been instructed to make it clear to the Spanish Government that His Majesty's Government attach great importance to the maintenance of the neutrality of the Zone, and to the avoidance of any action which might be harmful to British interests. I understand that the component parts of the Tangier Administration, apart from the International Gendarmerie, have continued to function as usual under the direct supervision of the Officer Commanding the Spanish troops.

Mr. Cocks: Is it not of great importance to His Majesty's Government that Tangier should remain neutral and unfortified, and do the Government propose to take every action to see that it remains so?

Mr. Butler: His Majesty's Ambassador has already been instructed to make this clear to the Spanish Government, and he has stressed the importance we attach to the neutrality of the zone. The great importance of my hon. Friend's observations is fully realised by His Majesty's Government.

Mr. Mander: Has any explanation been received by His Majesty's Ambassador in Madrid as to this high-handed unilateral act of aggression, and will he press for some explanation at the earliest possible moment?

Mr. Butler: His Majesty's Ambassador has seen the Spanish Minister for Foreign Affairs, and in due course it will no doubt be possible to obtain a further explanation as to the Spanish action.

Mr. Cocks: Does my right hon. Friend realise the great importance which Tangier would have as a fortified naval base?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether an undamaged fugitive submarine is still sheltering there?

Mr. Butler: I should require notice of that question.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Government will draw the attention of the Spanish Government to the great difficulty of our allowing the continuance of oil supplies to a foreign Government which violates British rights and allows her harbours to be used by enemy craft in violation of international law?

Mr. Butler: My hon. Friend can rest assured that the importance of these matters is realised. There have already been interchanges between the two Governments concerned.

Mr. Maxton: Had His Majesty's Government a diplomatic representative in the international zone at the time of the incident, and had His Majesty's Government any advance information about it?

Mr. Butler: The answer to the first part of that question is in the affirmative and to the second in the negative. There was a Consul-General in Tangier.

Mr. Maxton: Was the Consul-General aware in advance?

Mr. Butler: His Majesty's Consul-General is always wide awake, but no previous information was given to him of the intended Spanish action.

Mr. Cocks: I do not think the answer is satisfactory, and accordingly I wish to give notice that I propose to raise the matter upon the Adjournment. I should like to do that today, if that suits your convenience, Mr. Speaker, and that of the right hon. Gentleman.

Oral Answers to Questions — SYRIA AND LEBANON.

Mr. Cocks: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make a statement as to the present position in Syria and the conditions there prevailing?

Mr. Butler: There has been no very material change recently in the situation in Syria and the Lebanon. An Italian Armistice Commission is still in Beirut. The French authorities have on various occasions officially denied that the Commission had asked for bases for the Italian forces in Syria, or for the surrender of French aeroplanes to Italy. They are said to have confined their activities to compiling a list of war materials.

Mr. Cocks: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information about the mission of Baron von Oppenheim in Syria, and about his activities in proximity to the oil pipe line?

Mr. Butler: I should require notice of that question.

Mr. Price: Is there any control over the oil and other raw materials which may leave Syria and possibly get to enemy quarters?

Oral Answers to Questions — FRENCH OVERSEAS TERRITORIES.

Mr. Cocks: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foregn Affairs which of the French Colonies and possessions have now joined Free France?

Mr. Butler: The French overseas territories which have so far joined General de Gaulle are:

French Equatorial Africa;
The Mandated Territory of the Cameroons;
The French Establishments in India;
New Caledonia;
French Oceania (Tahiti);
The French administration of the Condominium of the New Hebrides.

Oral Answers to Questions — DANUBE.

Mr. Mander: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the reasons for the British protest against the Soviet Government's intervention in the administration of the Danube?

Mr. Butler: The protest to which the hon. Member refers was more specifically directed to the action of the Soviet Government in agreeing to become a party to an arrangement which included Italy but excluded the United Kingdom from the participation provided for by the existing international treaties in the regulation of questions relating to the Danube. His Majesty's Government's note made it clear that they appreciated the desire of the Soviet Union as a Power now in control of territories bordering on the Danube to take part in the regulation of that waterway.

Mr. Mander: Is it not the case that we want the Soviet Government to take as much interest as possible in the Danube, and was it not rather inopportune to make

a protest on technical grounds at such a moment?

Mr. Butler: I cannot accept the stricture of my hon. Friend, but, as I stated in my original answer, His Majesty's Government made it clear that they appreciated the desire of the Soviet Union to take an interest in the territories bordering on the Danube.

Mr. Buchanan: Will the right hon. Gentleman not say that, on reflection, it was a mistake?

Mr. Shinwell: Would it not be possible, having regard to the general situation, to show a little more conciliation towards Russia?

Mr. Butler: I think the hon. Member can be satisfied that His Majesty's Government have shown a proper spirit towards the Soviet Union. It is well known that it has been our wish to improve relations with the Soviet Union in every respect, and I do not think I should make any further observations upon this particular incident, the reasons for which I have explained and the scope of which I do not think the House ought to exaggerate.

Mr. A. Bevan: When the Note was sent, did the Foreign Office draw the attention of the War Cabinet to the matter? Can I have an answer to that question?

Oral Answers to Questions — OIL EXPORTS TO JAPAN.

Mr. Noel-Baker: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make a statement concerning the progress and result of the negotiations between the Japanese Government and the British, Dutch and American companies for the supply of oil to Japan?

Mr. Butler: I have at present no further information to add to the answer which I gave on 5th November to my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Mr. R. Morgan).

Mr. Noel-Baker: Does my right hon. Friend expect to have information in the near future?

Mr. Butler: I hope so.

Mr. Mander: Has my right hon. Friend not seen the statement in the "Times" to-day that an agreement has been


initialled between the Japanese representatives and the oil interests for the import of oil from the Dutch East Indies?

Mr. Butler: I saw that telegram reported. The latest information which I have ascertained is that the agreement is not actually signed. Naturally, when I have further information, I shall place it at the disposal of the House.

Mr. Shinwell: In the meantime, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Japanese are getting oil from this source?

Mr. Butler: If the agreement is not yet finally concluded, I do not suppose they are getting the oil.

Mr. Shinwell: The right hon. Gentleman said he does not suppose they are getting the oil. Cannot he be more definite?

Mr. Butler: If this agreement is not concluded, it will be difficult for them to get the oil. The Netherlands East Indies were a normal source of supply of oil to Japan, and I cannot say whether, under normal conditions, supplies of oil are now proceeding to Japan.

Sir Richard Acland: Are the Government doing anything to prevent any company making an agreement with Japan, or are they waiting to see what the companies do with the intention of making a report upon it?

Mr. Butler: There has been contact between His Majesty's Government and the United States Government on this matter, but the location of the companies and the territories concerned must be taken into account.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA AND JAPAN.

Mr. Noel-Baker: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Ambassador to China has now returned the numbers of Chinese civilians killed by the Japanese aerial bombardment of Chungking?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. I regret to state that figures for the present year show that 2,005 persons were killed at Chungking up to 14th August, and 2,479 wounded. In addition, at least 500 more were killed in raids at Chungking at the end of August.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Has the right hon. Gentleman the figures for earlier years?

Mr. Butler: There has been a certain amount of difficulty, as the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, in obtaining these figures as accurately as we have been able to do, but I will certainly attempt to get the figures for earlier years. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate the difficulty of doing so.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the civilians killed were numbered by tens of thousands; and is it not desirable that, whatever other Governments may do, our British companies should not be allowed to furnish oil for this butchery in Chungking?

Mr. Butler: I do not think that the position can be simplified to that extent. The oil situation, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is very difficult, and it is an international matter. He should not make a statement which attributes to this country a desire of that nature.

Mr. Noel-Baker: With great respect, is it not possible for our Government to ensure that British companies shall sell oil to us and to other victims of aggression, but not for purposes such as the bombardment of Chungking?

Oral Answers to Questions — CAPTURED GERMAN PILOTS (TREATMENT).

Mr. Stokes: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that on a number of occasions German pilots on being captured have stated that they expected to be shot or poisoned; and whether, with a view to inducing pilots on future occasions to surrender more easily, he will have it broadcast in German on the wireless at regular intervals that German prisoners are treated in accordance with the rules of The Hague Convention?

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Captain Harold Balfour): The answer to the first part of the Question is in the negative. I appreciate the point of the hon. Member's suggestion, but I do not consider that any useful purpose would be served by broadcasts of the kind referred to, particularly as it is unlikely that they would be allowed to reach the pilots concerned.

Mr. Stokes: If I send the hon. and gallant Gentleman particulars given to me by the persons from whom I have obtained this information, which is quite official, will he have it examined? These statements appear to me to be facts.

Captain Balfour: I will certainly look at anything the hon. Gentleman sends me.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE.

WOMEN'S AUXILIARY FORCE.

Mr. Profumo: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether any steps are being taken to supply members of the Women's Auxiliary Air Force with overcoats for the winter months?

Captain Balfour: Yes, Sir. Substantial progress in this direction has already been made, and it is anticipated that all airwomen will be equipped with greatcoats by the end of the year.

BOMBING, ITALY.

Mr. Wedgwood: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether there is held to be any reason why we should not bomb Rome, as the Italians are now bombing London?

Captain Balfour: I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the answer given on 7th November by my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to a similar Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Reed).

Mr. Wedgwood: Since that date the Italians have been bombing London. Is it not about time that we bombed Rome?

Captain Balfour: The answer to which I referred said that His Majesty's Government had taken note of the Italian statement that Italian men and aircraft had participated in the bombing of London, and that we must accordingly reserve full liberty of action in regard to Rome. Since that time, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Italian Government must have become aware that endeavours to approach the British coasts are likely to cause very heavy casualties to their air force.

Mr. Shinwell: Might we beg the Government not to be squeamish on a matter of this sort? Attack should be the order of the day.

Captain Balfour: It would be thoroughly wrong to give away to the enemy our strategic plans for bombing enemy objectives, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, on reflection, will agree that it would not be in the interests of those who are to carry out the bombing that we should give such plans away.

Mr. Shinwell: We are not asking for any strategic plans; we are asking for results.

Captain Balfour: It is scarcely fair on the Royal Air Force for the hon. Member to infer that he cannot see results every day in the communiqués we are giving.

Mr. Shinwell: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman not understand that not a single hon. Member would desire to make any reflection on the gallantry of the Royal Air Force?

Captain Balfour: I apologise if I took the hon. Member up wrongly.

Mr. Wedgwood: Could I have an answer to my Question?

Mr. Speaker: rose—

Oral Answers to Questions — AIRCRAFT PRODUCTION.

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS (WAGES AND CONDITIONS).

Mr. Cluse: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aircraft Production whether he has considered the resolution recently passed by the London Trades Council in regard to wages conditions in factories carrying out Government contracts, in which it is stated that many firms are misinterpreting Government regulations on wages and conditions, creating, as a result, confusion and misunderstanding on important sections of war industry, and leading to a worsening of customary conditions; and whether he will see to it that when, after protracted negotiations, the Fair Wages Clause has been implemented, consideration will be given to the payment of back unpaid wages to the operative staffs?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aircraft Production (Colonel Llewellin): I am not aware of any tendency on the part of contractors to misinterpret Government regulations on wages and conditions. Whether settlement of any dispute under the Fair Wages Clause


should have retrospective effect must depend on the circumstances of the particular case.

Mr. Cluse: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman desire to inform me that, when several firms implement the regulations only after protracted negotiations and when during the period of the negotiations thousands of ordinary workmen possibly have been deprived of their legitimate wages and working conditions, his Department does not press for retrospective payment?

Colonel Llewellin: No, Sir. I am not intending to convey that impression at all. I know that my hon. Friend has one particular case in mind. We are taking up that case, and I think it very probable that we shall get complete agreement to make it restrospective.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: Will the Minister keep in mind that if the Ministry of Aircraft Production issued instructions to firms in the locality concerned, instead of to firms outside that locality, those differences in conditions would not arise?

REQUISITIONED FACTORIES (COMPENSATION CLAIMS).

Mr. Pearson: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aircraft Production what progress is being made in the settling of claims for compensation of firms in the West Country whose factories have been requisitioned by the Ministry of Aircraft Production; and whether it is possible to make a payment on account where a full settlement will take a long time?

Colonel Llewellin: The claims received include matters for which compensation is not payable under the Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939, but where the need to eliminate such items causes delay in final settlement, arrangements have been made for payment on account.

Mr. Simmonds: Would my hon. and gallant Friend bear in mind that many of the companies that have been requisitioned have shown great public spirit in assisting other companies which have taken the factories over, and will he, therefore, pay great attention to those claims?

Colonel Llewellin: I fully endorse what my hon. Friend has said, and I certainly agree with what he suggests.

FACTORY WORKERS' REPRESENTATIONS.

Sir R. Acland: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aircraft Production (1) whether he has been able to make a decision to agree to the request of the shop stewards at the aircraft factory in the North-West of England for an inquiry into questions which they have raised;
(2) whether any decision has been taken to hold an inquiry into the allegations of the workmen at a certain aircraft factory about which private representations have been made to him?

Colonel Llewellin: Yes, Sir. My Noble Friend is having inquiries made into the matters referred to in these Questions.

Sir R. Acland: Is the nature of the inquiry to be of the kind suggested in the communications which have passed between us, or is it merely to be a Governmental inquiry, in which the men cannot be expected to have confidence?

Colonel Llewellin: I do not know why the men should not have confidence in a Governmental inquiry, when the Government represents all parties—[Interruption]—with the exception of—

Mr. Maxton: Some of us.

Colonel Llewellin: I should have thought that a Governmental inquiry might have been the right one. Do not let me say anything to misrepresent the position to my hon. Friend. We have had a statement of the case from the shop stewards, and we have just received comments on that from the other side. We are considering those two statements together in the first instance.

Mr. Hicks: In such circumstances, would the hon. and gallant Gentleman ask that the shop stewards should make their requests through the trade unions, which is their best way to get representation? If there is to be an inquiry at all, should it not be done through their organisations?

Colonel Llewellin: I quite agree with what my hon. Friend has said. Ultimately we may deal with the matter in that way. My Noble Friend, in the peculiar circumstances of the case, did see the shop stewards, but in the normal way the practice of the Department must


be, and should be, to deal with these matters through the trade union representatives.

Sir R. Acland: Would the hon. and gallant Gentleman discuss this matter with me afterwards? There are important issues involved, and it is conceivable that it may be necessary to raise the matter at some other time.

Mr. Granville: Is not this a matter for the Minister of Labour?

MOTOR CARS (REQUISITIONING).

Mr. Isaacs: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aircraft Production, why his Department has appealed to the owners of high-powered motorcars to lend them to the Ministry; why, in view of the Government's decision to take over all property, he could not have taken possession of these vehicles; how many of these motor cars are in the country; and how many have been loaned to the Government?

Colonel Llewellin: The cars for which my Noble Friend appealed are required primarily to transport ferry pool pilots to and from the widely scattered aircraft storage units. He was satisfied that he could obtain all the cars needed from patriotic owners who had the good fortune to possess them. The number of cars offered in response to the appeal is approximately 200, but I have no information as to the total number of such cars in the country.

Mr. Isaacs: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say why, if it was found necessary at the beginning of the war to requisition the small vans of little tradesmen and thereby ruin their businesses, the requisitioning of these cars was not done on the same basis?

Colonel Llewellin: When the Government requisitioned the vans of tradesmen, they paid compensation for those vans. The advantage that we get by having these cars given to us by the patriotic people who have done so is that we pay nothing for them.

Mr. Isaacs: May I suggest to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that that is practically what they paid to the tradesmen?

ARMY LORRIES (CIVILIAN TRANS- PORT).

Miss Ward: asked the Minister of Transport the result of his conversations with the War Office as to making available Army transport for civilian workers during rush hours?

The Minister of Transport (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon): In so far as Army lorries can be made available, they will generally be used for goods transport, for which they are more suitable than for conveying passengers. My right hon. Friend is assisting passenger transport by releasing a number of public service vehicles previously held at the disposal of the Army.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF INFORMATION.

CENSORSHIP (WELSH REGION).

Sir Henry Morris-Jones: asked the Minister of Information whether he is aware that the majority of the Welsh vernacular Press is published in North Wales, and that the Censorship branch office, situated at present at Cardiff, is an inconvenience both to the office and certainly to the North Wales Press; and whether he will establish a branch office at either Wrexham, Denbigh or Colwyn Bay?

The Minister of Information (Mr. Duff Cooper): I am aware that the majority of the Welsh vernacular Press is published in North Wales. But the majority of the papers in Wales, including the only daily papers, is edited and published in South Wales, for which Cardiff forms the most convenient centre. There is no Censorship branch office in Wales, but only an advisory Censor for the Welsh Region, whose headquarters are at the Regional offices of the Ministry of Information in Cardiff. His duties include the duty of advising all editors in the Welsh region on Censorship matters and of visiting them in their own offices when occasion offers. The answer to the last part of the Question is in the negative.

Sir H. Morris-Jones: Will my right hon. Friend give further consideration to this matter?

Mr. Cooper: Yes, Sir; I shall be prepared to do so.

BROADCASTING (PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS).

Mr. Granville: asked the Minister of Information whether he will take steps to see that the news bulletins of the British Broadcasting Corporation contain a summary of speeches and questions on Parliamentary proceedings as was, until recently, the normal practice?

Mr. Cooper: Parliamentary proceedings are reported by the B.B.C. as fully as the length of news bulletins allows, but at present the news from the Fighting Services is extensive, and this causes other items to be compressed.

Mr. Granville: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, of a full-dress Debate in this House last week, in which leaders of all parties took part, only one speech was reported; and does he think that this is a fair report of democratic proceedings in a democratic country?

Mr. Cooper: No, Sir; I drew the attention of the Director-General of the British Broadcasting Corporation to the reporting of that Debate, and he regretted that more space had not been given to the other speeches that had been delivered by hon. Members.

Mr. Granville: Is there any restriction in regard to the time that news is released from the Gallery to the Press and to the radio?

Mr. Cooper: There is a certain restriction on the time at which it is released, as it is not desirable that the times at which we meet should be known to the public.

Sir H. Morris-Jones: Will my right hon. Friend get the B.B.C. to give us a little more Parliamentary news and a little less of the stale war news they give us several times a day?

Mr. Mander: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the B.B.C., when reporting speeches and questions, are now omitting the names of the Members who make and ask them, and will he be good enough to suggest that they might be good enough to insert the names of any such Members, other than mine?

Mr. Granville: Will the Minister look into the fact that the Press find great difficulty in getting their reports into the next morning's newspapers, owing to the restrictions?

Mr. Cooper: It is now much easier than in the past.

Mr. Buchanan: If the reporting of Parliamentary speeches by the B.B.C. is extended, will the right hon. Gentleman see that it is not extended merely to include the speeches of a few selected Front Benchers, but that it shall include the speeches of Members of the House in general?

LOCAL INFORMATION COMMITTEES, LONDON.

Mr. Brooke: asked the Minister of Information how many local information committees he has caused to be set up in Metropolitan boroughs, and how many have met during the past two months?

Mr. Cooper: In the Metropolitan Boroughs 28 local information committees have been set up, one in each borough. During the last two months 16 of these committees have met. Much of the work of these committees is undertaken by sub-committees. Including the number of meetings of such committees, the total number of meetnigs held in the last two months is 55.

Mr. George Griffiths: As some of us are very much disturbed about the question of tabooing—blackmailing if you like—certain speakers from coming into certain Divisions, can the Minister tell us where this arises; and was it actually in the 1922 Club that he promised that this should take place?

Mr. Cooper: That does not arise out of this Question, but relates to another Question later on the Order Paper.

BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION.

Sir Irving Albery: asked the Minister of Information whether the usual peacetime direction of the British Broadcasting Corporation is now controlling necessary war time activities or whether a special directorate has been set up for this purpose with adequate powers?

Mr. Cooper: No special directorate for the control of war time activities has been set up, but the constitution of the B.B.C. had undergone some radical changes since the outbreak of war.

Sir I. Albery: Does my right hon. Friend personally take full responsibility for foreign propaganda by the British


Broadcasting Corporation, and is he convinced that he has sufficient powers and facilities to carry that out?

Mr. Cooper: I am responsible for the political statements, news-bulletins and talks sent out by the British Broadcasting Corporation at the present time, and I am inquiring into steps that might be taken with regard to improving this service.

Sir I. Albery: My right hon. Friend has enumerated a few things for which he is responsible, but is he responsible also for the things which are not taking place, but which should take place?

Mr. Granville: Will my right hon. Friend continue the old practice of including distinguished Members of all parties in this House in the programme of talks of the B.B.C.?

Mr. Cooper: Certainly, Sir.

PUBLIC MEETINGS.

Mr. Davidson: asked the Minister of Information why the number of public meetings held under the auspices of his Department is being reduced; whether any speakers have been dismissed; and how far this is due to objections having been raised to meetings addressed by speakers inclined to take more radical and democratic views than are consistent with Government policy?

Mr. Cooper: The main reason for the reduction in the number of meetings promoted or sponsored by the Ministry is that the season for outdoor meetings, which accounted for about half the number, is over. There is also the undesirability of assembling large numbers of people in one place under night raiding conditions. Transport difficulties and the increasing scarcity of suitable halls are additional factors. The answer to the second part of the Question is that the number of full-time paid speakers on the Ministry staff has been reduced from 49 to 29. As regards the third part of the Question, no speaker has been dismissed on account of political views, but all speakers are under instructions to refrain from taking part in party politics while in the employment of the Ministry.

Mr. Davidson: Is the Minister aware that statements have appeared under the pen of Mr. Hannen Swaffer stating that

he himself and another lady, a member of the Labour party, were submitted to a Tory M.P. for his approval as to whether they should speak in his constituency or not, and that because this Tory M.P. objected, these people, who wanted to place the national point of view before the public, were refused a hearing?

Mr. Cooper: The point of view which I have adopted with regard to this question is that, while it is no part of the duty of the Ministry of Information to prevent or to arrange meetings, we are always willing to assist Members or a constituency in arranging meetings wherever they wish to hold them, but I also take the view that, as a Member of Parliament, I should consult my colleagues regarding meetings arranged by the Ministry in their constituency. If they object to certain speakers, the Ministry should take no part in arranging these meetings.

Mr. Shinwell: If that is the position, are we to understand that, if the Minister wishes to send speakers to my constituency, I can object? I have no objection to anyone coming—even the right hon. Gentleman himself—but if that happens, it confounds the whole purpose of the Ministry in attempting to arrange meetings.

Mr. A. Bevan: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that it is the general view that public money ought not to be spent on sending propagandists into any constituency unless there is general agreement to do so and unless the Member of Parliament is consulted?

Mr. Key: Is it not a fact that the London Advisory Committee of the Ministry of Information have said that this political veto has prevented them from arranging any winter programme of meetings because speakers are not being accepted in their locality?

Mr. Cooper: If they have made such a statement, it is quite inaccurate. Very few cases have arisen of Members objecting to certain people being sent to their constituencies, and I do not think that such objections are likely to be frequent. In regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell), I have no power to prevent anyone going to his constituency, but I would not send a speaker to his constituency without having the courtesy to consult him first.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: Could my right hon. Friend make it absolutely clear who is responsible for the selection of speakers and what is the position with regard to a Member of Parliament in relation to these speakers?

Mr. Cooper: The general practice is that a regional information committee draws up a list of speakers whom they think it would be desirable to have in the constituency, and arrangements are made for the list to be communicated to the Member of Parliament. If there happens to he a speaker whom the Member would not wish to have in his constituency—somebody may be a candidate and might take advantage of the position—he objects, and then the Ministry approaches one of the other speakers on the list and arranges a meeting.

Mr. Lindsay: Should not the list be submitted to each Member?

SCOTLAND (ORGANISATION).

Mr. Davidson: asked the Minister of Information what steps have been taken by his Department to maintain Scottish interest and support?

Mr. Cooper: A regional information officer for Scotland was appointed over a year ago, together with subsidiary staff. The regional information officer is advised by a regional advisory committee. There is also a district committee, representative of prominent citizens, political, commercial, and local government interests, in each of the five defence regions. In addition, local sub-committees are being formed, and local correspondents appointed, for areas where there is need for them. These committees represent as nearly as may be all the phases of local life and are active in maintaining Scottish interest and support by means of public meetings as necessary, lectures, film displays, distribution of literature, exhibitions of photographs, etc., as well as assisting in the work of other Government Departments when requested to do so. The regional information officer keeps in close touch with the Scottish Press and renders assistance where possible.

Mr. Davidson: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the whole question of the Ministry of Information's organisation, because there are people suffering from a complete lack of information with regard to the Scottish effort in this war, particularly with regard to such episodes

concerning the 51st and 52nd Divisions and the men of Lewis? Is he aware that there is great resentment at receiving no news at all with regard to the heroic efforts of these men?

Mr. Cooper: I will certainly look into the matter; I had no idea that there was any general complaint in Scotland.

PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS (PROPAGANDA).

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Information whether he will consider the propaganda value of demonstrating the nature and value of democratic freedom by circulating in our Dominions, Colonies and foreign countries reports of Debates in this House on social and constitutional issues or by encouraging the publication and wide circulation of extracts from the OFFICIAL REPORT?

Mr. Cooper: Full reports of Parliamentary proceedings are already made available by various means to all countries in which they are likely to be appreciated. If, however, the hon. Member has any suggestions to make with regard to any particular country, I will be glad to consider them.

Mr. Sorensen: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is not sufficient merely to make them available but that a certain value resides in the circulation in as many countries as possible of illustrations of the free discussion that takes place in this House of Parliament? Would he not consider the possibility of circulating both sides of discussions that may take place here in order to demonstrate our superiority in that respect?

Mr. Cooper: I will do everything. I can to increase such publication.

Mr. Sorensen: Will the right hon. Gentleman do everything he can to see that these Debates are circulated?

Mr. Cooper: I will see what steps can be taken, but I do not think that merely circulating the OFFICIAL REPORT would be the right way of dealing with the matter.

OVERSEAS BROADCASTS (CENSORSHIP).

Mr. Noel-Baker: asked the Minister of Information whether any other Department is consulted with regard to the censorship of talks broadcast in the overseas programmes of the British Broadcasting Corporation; and whether it is the


policy of His Majesty's Government that nothing shall be said which has not the approval of the Departmental officials?

Mr. Cooper: The B.B.C. regularly consults Government Departments, with regard to such matters and, where issues affecting the national interest are involved, it accepts the guidance of the appropriate Department upon them.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that last August an official prevented an independent speaker from saying that the Greek cruiser "Hellenes" had been sunk by an Italian submarine and that last week an independent speaker was prevented from saying that if there had been an oil embargo in 1931 it would have checked the Japanese invasion of China; and does he not think that such interference with independent speakers is out of date and calculated to reduce the persuasive influence of speeches which are broadcast to many of those who are our sympathisers?

Mr. Cooper: I think that distinguished Members of Parliament, although independent at the time they are broadcasting on international affairs, must expect in war-time to have their scripts censored by the appropriate authority. I am not prepared to go into the various detailed points of the two cases which the hon. Member has raised, but I have no doubt that the appropriate authority would have a case for having deleted those passages on those two occasions.

Mr. Noel-Baker: While fully recognising, of course, that there must be consultations, may I put it that there ought to be considerable elasticity? In view of the importance of the principle involved, may I give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment at an early date?

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of CAPTAIN STRICKLAND:

34. To ask the Minister of Information whether his attention has been called to the fact that a German airman prisoner of war has been placed in a ward in a Midland hospital with some of the victims of his bombs; that he had asked whether his bombs had caused any harm, and that,

after exhibiting fear that he was so placed he had expressed his regret; and whether, in view of the resentment expressed by the public and subscribers at such callousness on the part of the hospital authorities, he is in a position to make a statement on the matter?

Captain Strickland: The Question I wish to ask is: "To ask the Minister of Information, whether his attention has been called to a statement made in certain newspapers," and not "to the fact"?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and gallant Member must know that this is quite contrary to the Rules. He must accept and take responsibility for what he says being the fact, and not refer to newspapers.

Captain Strickland: On a point of Order. The form in which this Question is now put makes me responsible for what is a libel on the hospitals of this country, and I feel that if that is the Rule, it should be altered. I feel that I cannot put the Question in the form in which it has been altered without my consent. I knew nothing about the alteration.

Mr. Speaker: The best thing to do is not to put the Question.

Captain Strickland: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, may I raise this point at the end of Questions?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and gallant Member can do so, but I have nothing further to say beyond what I have already said. It is quite contrary to the Rule.

Captain Strickland: Well, Sir, I decline to put the Question in that form.

Miss Rathbone: Mr. Speaker, will you, consider the effect of this Rule in obliging many Members to take the responsibility for a thing being true, when they merely want to ascertain whether the thing is true? If that is the Rule, may we respectfully ask whether it should not be reconsidered?

Mr. Speaker: After a very long experience of Questions, we have found it to be so much better that, in putting Questions, Members should make themselves responsible for the statements they make in the Question, and not put the responsibility on to a newspaper.

At the end of Questions—

Captain Strickland: Mr. Speaker, with your sanction and with a sense of justice


to the House, I should like to rise to make a point of personal explanation in regard to a Question on the Order Paper to-day. It is necessary for me to do this because, by the alteration of the form of the Question that I put down, I am made responsible for a very crude slander which has been raised against a hospital in the Midlands, with reference to a recent occurrence in which a German aeroplane was brought down, and two wounded German airmen were taken prisoners and taken into a certain hospital. The form in which I put the Question was:
Whether the Minister of Information has had his attention drawn to a statement which appeared in the papers?
I had no knowledge whatsoever that the form of the Question had been altered to a form in which I myself called attention to a fact, when I could not possibly put that Question in that form. Unquestionably, a lot of harm may have been done to me personally by an accusation which may well be brought that I have merely succeeded in spreading this slander. It does seem to me that, if it is the Rule—and I understand it is the Rule—that we cannot call attention to a statement in the papers, a great privilege of criticism is removed from the rights of the Members of this House.
The whole of the facts contained in this paper were utterly false. I took the precaution to send the papers in question and a full statement from the governors of the particular hospital, of which I am one, to the Minister of Information so that he would be aware of what had happened. In spite of this, one of these papers persisted, and published the further statement that in this hospital the nurses had petted a fair-haired, blue-eyed prisoner of war and that the ladies of Coventry were sending gifts of cigarettes and flowers to this man. This is entirely a journalistic invention, and it seems to me to be a cruel thing that a Member of the House should be forced to put on his own shoulders a statement that this is a fact in order to call attention to a grave injustice to our hospital system. I wanted to make this explanation for fear that people outside the House might think that I believed this to be a fact, owing to this alteration. I would suggest that, when an alteration of such serious import is made to a Question, the Member should be informed, so that he could withdraw

the Question and prevent its obtaining the publicity which this Question has obtained in the Press. Further, I should like to point out that the Rule against calling attention to articles in newspapers is apparently not always enforced, because only to-day in a Supplementary Question the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) asked the Minister whether his attention had not been called to an article which appears in the "Times" this morning in regard to the supply of oil to Japan, and that was allowed to be put, and an answer was given. I thank you, Sir, and the House for the courtesy with which they have listened to me.

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry the hon. and gallant Gentleman was not aware that the Question that he handed in had been altered so as to make it conform with the Rules. Notice to him ought properly to have been given, but I would call his attention to the fact that the Question was on the Paper for a week, so that, if he had seen the Order Paper, he would have seen that the Question had been altered to the form in which it appears on the Paper. As regards the other matter to which he drew attention, about something in a newspaper being referred to in a Supplementary Question, I very often call Members to order for referring to a newspaper in a Supplementary Question, but there are occasions on which a Minister in his answer may have referred to some statement of this kind, and it would be allowable in a Supplementary.

Captain Strickland: I did not receive the Order Papers, owing to delay in the post, until two days ago, and I was not aware that the Question had been altered.

WHALE ISLAND DEPOT (FOOD SUPPLIES).

Mr. Shinwell: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has yet considered the complaint regarding the food supplied to men stationed at Whale Island depot, about which the hon. Member for Seaham wrote on 3rd September, and which he acknowledged on 4th September; why so long a period has elapsed between lodging the complaint and ascertaining the facts; and whether he will now deal with the matter?

The First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. A. V. Alexander): I regret that there has been so long a delay in dealing with this matter, which required special inquiries. I think my hon. Friend did a service in calling attention to what has proved to be a fault in the organisation at the naval establishment which he mentions. I am glad to state, however, that this has now been put right, and I am sending my hon. Friend full details.

Mr. Shinwell: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether, in view of his inquiry and the defects revealed, he will take steps to see that in other establishments defects of that kind will be dealt with?

Mr. Alexander: Yes, Sir, I certainly will. One of the great difficulties in this kind of service in war time is the necessarily frequent change of leading personnel in dealing with organisation, and we are trying to counteract that by new methods to see that these things do not happen.

AMERICAN RED CROSS.

Mr. Mander: asked the Prime Minister the contributions made up to date and offers received by the British Government from the American Red Cross for the relief of sufferers from enemy bombing in Great Britain and Palestine and other theatres of war?

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Attlee): The American Red Cross makes no direct contribution to the British Government, and the British Government make no direct appeal to the American Red Cross. Any direct gift, whether in cash or kind, would constitute a breach of neutrality. I am, however, aware that the American Red Cross has made most generous contributions to British voluntary organisations for the relief of sufferers from bombing.

Mr. Mander: Would my right hon. Friend see that the gratitude of the people of this country is conveyed to the American Red Cross and at the same time explain why an offer to help air-raid victims in Palestine, made by the American Red Cross, was refused, and on what grounds?

Mr. Attlee: I will certainly make inquiries. That is the first I have heard of it.

Mr. Granville: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the East End of London is very grateful to the American Red Cross for the help they have given since 8th September?

Mr. Attlee: I am quite certain of that.

DAY OF NATIONAL PRAYER.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the three days of prayer for peace through justice and charity appointed by Cardinal Hinsley for members of the Roman Catholic Church, he will consider a proposal for a national day of prayer for the same purpose arranged in collaboration between the Church of England and the Free Churches?

Mr. Attlee: While I sympathise with my hon. Friend's suggestion, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister cannot see his way to recommend that this proposal should be adopted at the present time. I would remind my hon. Friend that a day of National Prayer was held as recently as 8th September last.

Mr. Sorensen: Is it not undesirable that one Church should give the lead in this form of prayer, and whatever may be one's view of the efficacy or otherwise of this practice, will my right hon. Friend please ask the Prime Minister to consider the possibility of the next Day of Prayer being for the purpose laid down by this particular Church?

Mr. Attlee: I do not think there is anything I need add to the Prime Minister's statement. I think it must be a decision by the Government, and because a particular Church decides to take action, that does not necessarily mean that the Government must do the same.

Mr. Mander: Is it not a fact that what we all desire is peace with victory?

ECONOMIC POLICY AND PRODUCTION.

Mr. Parker: asked the Minister without Portfolio how often the Economic Policy Committee and the Production Council, respectively, have met since their creation; and whether he is satisfied that the machinery for economic coordination is working satisfactorily?

The Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Arthur Greenwood): The Economic Policy Committee and Production Council have met on an average between two and three times a month since they were set up. Much of the work within the sphere of these bodies is done by informal conferences and sub-committees and I should deprecate the idea that the number of full meetings held is an adequate criterion of a committee's effectiveness. As regards the last part of the Question, the answer is "Yes" but every opportunity will be taken to improve the machinery as experience suggests.

Mr. Parker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a good deal of disquiet about the lack of planning in our economic war effort, and is he taking any steps to hasten the effective planning of the war effort?

Mr. Greenwood: Consideration of one or other aspect of that problem is taking place every day of the week.

Mr. Shinwell: Are the expert economists associated with the Department fully consulted, and frequently by my right hon. Friend?

Mr. Greenwood: Certainly, Sir. I spend a great deal of every day with them.

Mr. Davidson: Does the Production Council deal with the question of the buildings in which the production takes place?

Mr. Greenwood: No, not as such, though the Minister responsible for building is a member of the council.

Mr. Davidson: Will my right hon. Friend keep in mind that production in certain areas is being considerably delayed because of the bad building policy of various Departments?

Mr. Greenwood: That matter is now under very active investigation.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES.

MILK.

Mr. Price: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether it is his intention to put into force any or all of the recommendations of the Committee appointed to examine costs of milk distribution, and presided over by Lord Perry?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Major Lloyd George): The recommendations made by the Committee in the report to which my hon. Friend refers are being carefully examined by my Noble Friend. I am not at present in a position to make any announcement of the policy of His Majesty's Government on the subject.

Mr. Price: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman bear in mind the extreme importance at an early date of reducing the very heavy costs of distribution, which have been proved by the recent report of the Committee?

Major Lloyd George: I assure the hon. Gentleman that no time will be lost. The report has been in our hands for only a comparatively few days, and consultations are taking place at this moment.

POTATOES.

Mr. Price: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether, in order to keep potato prices steady during the winter, he will consider purchasing for store, from time to time, local surpluses that come on the market?

Major Lloyd George: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave on 7th November to a similar Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Evesham (Mr. De la Bère).

UNRATIONED FOODS AND SOAP.

Mr. Silkin: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that there is a serious shortage of unrationed foods and household materials, such as soap, in areas where the population has recently been substantially increased by reason of evacuation from bombed areas; and what steps he is taking to deal with these shortages?

Major Lloyd George: Temporary shortages of unrationed foods have occurred at certain places through the unexpected influx of population, but this has been adjusted in most cases within a very few days. So far as soap is concerned, my Noble Friend is not aware of any serious shortage. The Ministry of Food exercise no control over the distribution of soap, but I am informed that the principal firms manufacturing soap have, for some time, been allocating increased supplies to the reception areas. Other soap


manufacturers are being approached through the Soap Makers' Federation with a view to their taking similar action. If my hon. Friend will let me have details of areas in which shortages have been reported, I will arrange for investigations to be made.

Mr. Watkins: Does the Department constantly bear in mind the problem of those districts in which there has been a large influx of new population, and which are suffering from shortage of food and other materials?

Major Lloyd George: Certainly, but unfortunately it sometimes happens that an influx occurs without any warning. In those circumstances it takes a day or two to put the matter right, but normally arrangements are made.

Mr. Sorensen: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that there are many areas in the Home Counties where there is a definite shortage of foodstuffs, particularly milk?

Major Lloyd George: I am very surprised to hear that. If the hon. Gentleman has cases in mind, I should be very grateful if he would bring them to my notice.

Mr. Buchanan: Is there any way by which in a locality one can make a quick approach to somebody for the purpose of getting action taken when there is a shortage, as in certain parts of Glasgow recently, when there was a shortage of cooking salt?

Major Lloyd George: In such cases an approach could be made to the local food officer, who could then communicate, if there was any difficulty, with the Ministry.

RATIONING.

Sir I. Albery: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he will consider changing the food-rationing arrangements in this country, both as regards the Armed Services and civilians, so that one standard ration allowance shall be available to all, with an additional ration to those whose living and working conditions make this desirable?

Major Lloyd George: My Noble Friend has the food-rationing arrangements for civilians continually under review, and remains of the opinion that no fundamental alteration in the present arrangements is

necessary under existing conditions. The quantities of rationed foods issued to members of the Forces is a matter primarily for consideration by the Service Departments.

Sir I. Albery: Will my hon. and gallant Friend consider whether there is any justification for men who are doing similar work under similar conditions in Government offices in London getting entirely different rations?

Major Lloyd George: I do not know what my hon. Friend means by his reference to men in Government offices in London. They do not get different treatment. If he refers to the Services, that is another matter. I would inform him that the ration which members of the various Services receive is the result of medical advice given to each of the Services. It is primarily a matter for them. I would also remind my hon. Friend that it is a very small proportion of the total number in the Services.

Sir I. Albery: I was referring particularly to the Services, but that is only one glaring example of a quite unreasonable inequality which at present exists in the rationing arrangements.

COMMUNAL FEEDING.

Mr. David Adams: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether his attention has been drawn to the successful experiment in communal feeding now being carried out at Newcastle-upon-Tyne; and whether, in view of the beneficial effect of such feeding upon health and output, he is taking steps to secure its adoption in other key industrial areas?

Major Lloyd George: Yes, Sir. I have been informed regarding the community kitchens in Newcastle-upon-Tyne. My Noble Friend has already directed a letter to the Lord Mayors, Mayors and Chairmen of Urban and Rural District Councils throughout England and Wales and to the corresponding civic heads in Scotland, requesting them to do all in their power to set up as soon as possible community kitchens throughout the country.

Mr. Adams: As the hon. and gallant Gentleman has probably seen this scheme in operation, does he not agree that it is about as ideal a scheme as can be devised?

Major Lloyd George: I agree that it is a very good scheme indeed. I understand it was started about 20 years ago during the depression. I very much hope it will be copied.

SUBSIDIES.

Mr. Tinker: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food the sum of money paid since the war started on food subsidies; what will be the amount this financial year; what are the articles subidised and the amount paid for each?

Major Lloyd George: For the first seven months of war coming within the financial year ended 31st March, 1940, the deficit on the Ministry's trading accounts receiving subsidies amounted to approximately £19,500,000, of which a little more than one-half was accounted for by the subsidy on bread and flour, one-quarter by the subsidy on meat and the balance by the subsidies on bacon and liquid milk. The cost of these subsidies for the current financial year can be roughly estimated at £80,000,000 per annum. Bread, flour and meat account for the greater part of this sum.

Mr. Tinker: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman and his Noble Friend give consideration to the question of extending the subsidy to other articles of essential need to the poorer classes?

Major Lloyd George: I cannot answer that question without notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF SUPPLY.

PRINTING PAPER (PROVINCIAL STOCKS).

Sir H. Morris-Jones: asked the Minister of Supply whether he is satisfied that there are adequate stocks of printing paper in the provinces at present; and whether he can arrange for the distribution of stocks under, if necessary, Government control, in the many small towns throughout the country, on account of the delay at present in transport?

The Minister of Supply (Sir Andrew Duncan): Adequate stocks of printing paper to meet the present demand are held in the provinces by papermakers and paper merchants. I am not satisfied that further sub-division of those stocks would be advantageous. If my hon.

Friend has any particular difficulty in mind, I shall be happy to look into it if he will furnish me with particulars.

RAILINGS, LONDON.

Mr. Parker: asked the Minister of Supply when steps are to be taken to remove unnecessary railings round London squares, churches, etc.; and why so much delay has taken place in dealing with the matter?

Sir A. Duncan: Steps were taken last May to secure the surrender for scrap purposes of railings round London squares, etc., and a steady flow has been obtained. There has been no avoidable delay on the part of the Department, but in some cases legal formalities tend to slow clown the acquisition of this material. I am going into this aspect of the matter, but in the meantime, if my hon. Friend has any particular case in mind, perhaps he will let me have details.

Mr. Parker: Is the Minister satisfied that effective use is being made of the dumps of scrap metal already collected?

Sir A. Duncan: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Hicks: Will the Minister see that those little dumps which are dotted about all over the country, to which people have generously given contributions, are cleared up? It is very disheartening for those who have made the effort if the metal is not collected.

Sir A. Duncan: I have said in reply to Questions that I would take steps, and I have since taken those steps to see that these dumps are cleared up.

Sir Francis Fremantle: Does the Minister recognise the difficulty in regard to the removal of church railings, many of which are very useful?

DISUSED TINPLATE WORKS.

Mr. Pearson: asked the Minister of Supply whether he is aware that the Treforest tinplate works, Glamorgan, has been closed for many years owing to its production quota having been bought out by another firm and produced elsewhere; and whether this disused plant could be dismantled for scrap metal, and the works made available for the production of war supplies?

Sir A. Duncan: I understand that the Treforest Tinplate Works belong to the


Richard Thomas Group. The tinplate trade have appointed a redundancy committee to investigate the problem of old and disused tinplate works, and the Treforest Works will be considered in this connection. With regard to the last part of the Question, information about the works buildings has been furnished by the Area Board for Wales to the Ministry of Works and Buildings and has also been noted in the Ministry of Supply in case an opportunity arises for using the buildings.

BRITISH GUIANA (RICE).

Mr. Riley: asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any information regarding the dissatisfaction prevailing in British Guiana consequent on an alleged acute shortage of rice; and whether he is in a position to make a statement on the matter?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. George Hall): I have no information that there is at present any dissatisfaction in British Guiana because of shortage of rice, although I understand that the exportable surplus has turned out less than originally expected owing to failure of the spring crop due to drought. The Governor has already been asked for a report on the situation.

COLONIAL DEVELOPMENT.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will consider, in relation to existing plans of Colonial development, a 10-year programme of social, political and economic development specifically applicable to West Africa, and to commence immediately the war ends; and whether he will secure the advice, to this end, of native representatives, social and educational workers and administrators in West Africa?

Mr. George Hall: As my hon. Friend will appreciate, it is not feasible to make progress under present war time conditions with the preparation of the large-scale plans of development in the Colonies which the Colonial Development and Welfare Act is designed to promote. Proposals for schemes to be coordinated into

a comprehensive programme will be submitted by Colonial Governments as soon as it proves practicable to do so, and I have no doubt that in preparing such schemes the Governments will endeavour to secure the best advice available from local sources.

Mr. Sorensen: While thanking my hon. Friend for his reply, may I have an assurance that he will, in fact, secure the advice and cooperation of those social and educational workers who have been working on the spot in regard to any plans that may be drawn up for immediate application after the war?

Mr. Hall: I think my hon. Friend may rest assured on that.

MOSLEMS (MOSQUE AND CULTURAL CENTRE, LONDON).

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to afford assistance to the scheme for the establishment in London of a central mosque and Islamic cultural centre?

Mr. George Hall: Yes, Sir. Moslems in this country have long felt the need for a central place of worship in London. A committee of distinguished Moslems has recently been engaged in the preparation of plans for the establishment in London of a mosque and Islamic cultural centre on a scale adequate to meet the needs of the many Moslems who live in, or visit, this country. His Majesty's Government were approached by the committee with the suggestion that they should present a site for the building, and they have now decided to mark their sympathy with, and interest in, this important project by affording assistance to it in this manner. An early opportunity will be taken to invite Parliament to vote the necessary funds, the limit of which has been fixed at £100,000.

Mr. Creech Jones: Am I to take it that there are precedents for this kind of development by other Governments?

Mr. Hall: I should like to have notice of that Question, but I would point out that a few years ago the Egyptian Government presented a site to the British people in Egypt for the purpose of erecting a cathedral.

Mr. Hannah: Is not this of great importance to the whole Empire?

Dr. Edith Summerskill: Is it suggested that the Government are going to encourage polygamy in this country?

RUMANIA (BRITISH SHIPPING).

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Minister of Shipping whether he can make any statement as to the seizure of British Danube boats by the Rumanian Government?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Shipping (Sir Arthur Salter): I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) on 5th November.

WAR DEPARTMENT MOTOR VEHICLES (SPEED-LIMIT).

Mr. Culverwell: asked the Secretary of State for War whether War Department motor vehicles are subject to the ordinary speed-limit regulations; and will he take steps to secure their closer observance?

The Financial Secretary to the War War Office (Mr. Richard Law): War Department vehicles are subject to the ordinary speed-limit regulations, except that, in cases of operational necessity and under the orders of a responsible officer, they are granted exemption from the limits imposed on certain categories of vehicles. No War Department vehicle is exempt from the speed-limit of 30 miles per hour, and 20 miles per hour in hours of "black-out," in built-up areas. Instructions to this effect have been issued, and Commands are frequently reminded of their responsibilities in this matter.

Mr. Culverwell: Is my hon. Friend aware that many of these war vehicles are being driven by inexperienced drivers in the most dangerous and reckless manner? Will he take steps to enforce the regulations and take disciplinary action against those who break them?

Mr. Law: Yes, Sir, steps will certainly be taken.

Sir William Davison: Will an urgent circular be sent to commanding officers, because convoys with no urgent business are travelling at these reckless speeds dur-

ing the black-out to the great danger of the public? It is very undesirable that this should be allowed, and some serious notice should be taken of the matter.

Mr. Bellenger: Is the Minister aware that in operations orders there is a limit laid down to the number of vehicles per mile and the mileage per hour? Will he see that these operations orders are enforced, because at the present time drivers, even under officers, are ignoring them?

TIME-BOMB REMOVAL (FINE).

Mr. Wedgwood: (by Private Notice) asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to a fine of £100 imposed upon Mr. Leighton-Morris for removing a time-bomb from a house without authorisation, and in view of the courageous nature of the action, will he consider remitting the fine and arranging for some reward to he given to Mr. Leighton-Morris?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): I understand that notice has not yet been received of this Question; but the episode has certainly attracted as much attention in Government circles as out of doors. Without making any announcement on the subject, it is probable that some statement will be made at an early stage.

Mr. Wedgwood: I sent the notice to the Home Secretary and at the same time I sent it to you, Mr. Speaker, delivering it by hand yesterday.

The Prime Minister: I hope that mystery will be cleared up.

ATTACK ON ITALIAN NAVY.

FLEET AIR ARM SUCCESS.

The Prime Minister: I have some news for the House. It is good news. The Royal Navy has struck a crippling blow at the Italian fleet. The total strength of the Italian battle fleet was six battleships, two of them of the "Littorio" class, which have just been put into service and are, of course, among the most powerful vessels in the world, and four of the recently reconstructed "Cavour" class. This fleet was, of course, considerably more powerful on paper than our Mediterranean Fleet, but it had consistently refused to accept battle. On the


night of 11th-12th November, when the main units of the Italian fleet were lying behind their shore defences in their naval base at Taranto, our aircraft of the Fleet Air Arm attacked them in their stronghold. Reports of our airmen have been confirmed by photographic reconnaissance. It is now established that one battleship of the "Littorio" class was badly down by the bows and that her forecastle is under water and she has a heavy list to starboard. One battleship of the "Cavour" class has been beached, and her stern, up to and including the after-turret, is under water. This ship is also heavily listed to starboard. It has not yet been possible to establish the fact with certainly, but it appears that a second battleship of the "Cavour" class has also been severely damaged and beached. In the inner harbour of Taranto two Italian cruisers are listed to starboard and are surrounded with oil fuel, and two fleet auxiliaries are lying with their sterns under water. The Italian communiqué of 12th November, in admitting that one warship had been severely damaged, claimed that six of our aircraft had been shot down and three more probably. In fact, only two of our aircraft are missing, and it is noted that the enemy claimed that part of the crews had been taken prisoner.
I felt it my duty to bring this glorious episode to the immediate notice of the House. As the result of a determined and highly successful attack, which reflects the greatest honour on the Fleet Air Arm, only three Italian battleships now remain effective. This result, while it affects decisively the balance of naval power in the Mediterranean, also carries with it reactions upon the naval situation in every quarter of the globe.
The spirit of the Royal Navy, as shown in this daring attack, is also exemplified in the forlorn and heroic action which has been fought by the captain, officers and ship's company of the "Jervis Bay" in giving battle against overwhelming odds in order to protect the merchant convoy which they were escorting and thus securing the escape of by far the greater part of that convoy.
The Mediterranean Fleet have also continued to harass the Italian communications with their armies in Libya. On the night of 9th-10th November a bom-

bardment was carried out at Sidi Barani, and, though the fire was returned by shore batteries, our ships sustained no damage and no casualties. Moreover, one of our submarines attacked a convoy of two Italian supply ships escorted by destroyers, with the result that one heavily laden ship of 3,000 tons sank and a second ship was certainly damaged and probably sunk. I feel sure that the House will regard these results as highly satisfactory and as reflecting the greatest credit upon the Admiralty and upon Admiral Cunningham, Commander-in-Chief in the Mediterranean, and, above all, on our pilots of the Fleet Air Arm, who, like their brothers in the Royal Air Force, continue to render the country services of the highest order.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. Lees-Smith: Words can add nothing to the feat which has been described, so I will merely ask for a statement of Business for the future.

The Prime Minister: : I consider it advisable to make the usual Business statement in Secret Session to-day. There is nothing in it except our own affairs. After my statement we shall come out of Secret Session and conduct the rest of our proceedings in public. We shall ask the House to pass the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill through all its remaining stages, and then a Debate on thou Railways Agreement and railway fares will take place on the Motion for the Adjournment.

Ordered,
That, notwithstanding the practice of the House the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) (No. 2) Bill may be considered in Committee immediately after the Bill has been read a Second time."—[The Prime Minister.]

SECRET SESSION.

Notice taken, that strangers were present.

Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to Standing Order No. 89, put the Question, "That strangers be ordered to with draw."

Question agreed to.

Strangers withdrew accordingly.

[The House then went into Secret Session.]

Later, the House resumed in Public Session

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to provide for the payment of compensation or disablement benefit in the case of male workmen who have died from, or become totally and permanently incapacitated for work as the result of, the respiratory disease known as byssinosis; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid." [Workmen's Compensation and Benefit (Byssinosis) Bill [Lords].

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION AND BENEFIT (BYSSINOSIS) BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon the next Sitting Day.

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPRO- PRIATION) (No 2) BILL.

Read a Second time, and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

Resolved, That this House will immediately resolve itself into the said Committee.—[Captain Margesson.]

Bill accordingly considered in Committee:—

(Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.)

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 2.—(Power for the Treasury to borrow.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Gallacher: In the stage at which we have arrived I think it is undesirable that we should pass a Clause giving such powers to the Bank of England. It is time that something was done about the Bank of England. It has simply been fleecing the people of this country all along, and we have had in the past many undesirable acts on the part of the Bank which have not been to the interest and advantage of the country. Therefore, I oppose this Clause unless steps are taken to take over the Bank of England from the hands of the present controllers and to nationalise the banking system of the country.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 3 to 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedules agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — RAILWAYS AGREEMENT AND FARES.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Captain Margesson.)

Mr. Silkin: I desire to raise the question of the Railways Agreement and of railway rates generally. In opening, may I take the opportunity of con-

gratulating the right hon. and gallant Gentleman on his appointment to the important position of Minister of Transport, with which every Member of the House was pleased? The appointment has given all of us great pleasure, hope and expectation, because we know that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has in a marked degree the qualities of courage and imagination and, above all, of independence. I therefore make my case with some confidence that he will give it unbiased consideration. On 1st September, 1939, the Government assumed control of the four main line railways and the London Passenger Transport undertaking. The ownership of these undertakings remains with the various concerns. I believe that the Government made a profound mistake and missed a great opportunity at that time in not taking over and acquiring, on behalf of the nation, the whole of the transport system of the country, including not only the railways, but road undertakings, canals and even coastwise shipping. Transport in time of peace, but even more so in time of war, is the lifeblood of a nation. Mobility of goods and of personnel is a prime necessity. Efficiency in our war effort and the securing of the maximum output of war materials and foods depend on the speed with which goods can be transported from one place to another.
To secure this, I submit, it is essential for the Government to have complete control and to he able to call upon all forms of transport according to what is most appropriate in any given circumstances. This involves a drastic reorganisation and co-ordination of the transport system. To bring this about, the profit motive, which, in its nature, inevitably looks primarily for private gain rather than for the national interest, must be eliminated. The use of the transport system to the best advantage can, therefore, be achieved only by national ownership. I regard this as a policy which would have presented no difficulties at the beginning of the war and which can be carried out even to-day. Provided compensation could be reasonable and not extravagant, it would be to the financial advantage of the nation. Overlapping would be avoided and economies could be effected, which, under present conditions, it is not necessary for the private undertakings to secure.
This policy is perfectly feasible and practicable. After all, the Government have requisitioned hotels and large busi-


ness undertakings at practically a moment's notice without discussing the question of compensation. They have told the hotels, for instance that they must be evacuated at once and must surrender their premises to the Government, and the Government have said, "We will talk about compensation after the war." If the Government can do that as regards hotels and other business undertaking and also as regards vehicles, I see no reason why they should not have been able to acquire the ownership of the railways on the same sort of basis. Indeed, the Government did assume control of the railways with practically no notice, and it was not until seven or eight months later that they made any financial arrangement under which they assumed control. Although the Government took control in September, the White Paper setting out the financial arrangements was not published until February. I see no difference in principle between the acquisition of land, buildings and vehicles and the taking over of the ownership of the whole transport system of the country. It would be no more difficult to settle terms of acquisition than it has been to settle the terms under which the Government should control the railways.
Therefore, in the national interest, I ask the Minister to consider this question seriously. I am sure that he will not let political considerations and his own political past stand in the way of the national interest. I believe that if he were really convinced that it would be in the national interest to acquire the ownership of the railway system, he would do his best to bring it about. These are not days when any of us should stand on our past political principles merely as matters of principle. These are days when we have to look at the national interest and regard things much more from the point of view of expediency. Although in the past I might have argued, as a matter of political principle, for the nationalisation of the railway system, I put it forward to-day entirely as a matter of expediency. However, the Government decided, in September, 1939, to assume control of the railways and of London Transport, and it was not until February, 1940, that they issued the White Paper which they euphemistically described as an "Outline of the Financial Arrangements." In fact, it merely sets out a number of headings and

some of the terms under which the Government have taken control, but otherwise it gives very little information.
Even now, although it is over fourteen months since the Government assumed control, the House does not know the full terms of the Agreement. In fact, I issue a challenge to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and doubt whether he knows the full terms himself,. Only a week or so ago I was told by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's predecessor that the terms had not been completely drafted. I do not want to make a judgment on the persons responsible for the drafting of the Agreement, but it seems to me that there can be no possible excuse after fourteen months for not having the Agreement in draft to submit to the railway companies. It is certain that, whether the Agreement is in draft or not, it has not yet been agreed with the railway companies. It is unfair to the House and to the public, and, indeed, to the railway companies, that after fourteen months the Government should be controlling the railway system without having agreed the terms upon which they should do so. Even as far back as last April, when the matter was debated in the House, we were told that it was hoped that the Agreement would be made available very shortly. Seven months have elapsed and we are still in the same position. Therefore, I can deal only with such of the terms as have been made public.
First, the financial statement gives the undertakings a guarantee by the Government of a minimum annual revenue of £40,000,000. This figure is based on the average net revenue for the three years 1935, 1936 and 1937. It so happens that the revenue for 1938 was just over £34,000,000, very much less than the average of the three preceding years. Why have the Government chosen the three arbitrary years 1935 to 1937 and omitted 1938? If they had taken 1938 alone, that would have been reasonable, if they had taken the average of the last three years it would have been reasonable, but why 1938 was omitted altogether just passes my comprehension. On only four occasions in the last 10 years has the net revenue of the companies exceeded £40,000,000, which is the minimum guaranteed. The average of the last 10 years is well below that figure.
Moreover, the substitution of a State-guaranteed income for a highly specula-


tive one converts railway stock into a gilt-edged security, and so makes it more valuable. That fact in itself would have justified a lower guaranteed net revenue, if a guarantee had to be given at all. A guaranteed net revenue gives the railway companies an advantage in wartime over other public utility undertakings, which have suffered badly as a result of the war and have no guaranteed income. It is difficult for the ordinary person to understand why the railway companies should have been singled out to be guaranteed a minimum income which is substantially in excess of what they might have expected to earn in the ordinary way. I submit that the figure of £40,000,000 is far too generous, and that if a guarantee had to be given, a guarantee of £34,000,000, the amount of the 1938 revenue, would have been adequate. I want to stress that this figure is not necessarily the earnings of the undertakings, but the figure which the Government are guaranteeing, and there is every reason why that figure should be on the low side and not a maximum figure.
This guarantee is for a minimum income, but the financial arrangements provide that if the total revenue of the undertakings reaches £68,500,000 the undertakings are to receive £56,000,000 and the remainder is to go to the Exchequer as additional indirect taxation. This figure of £56,000,000 is one which the companies have never reached, certainly since 1921, and I doubt whether they have ever reached it in their history. At any rate they have never reached a figure of £56,000,000 as a net revenue since the amalgamation of the companies in 1921. Again I fail to see the justification for giving the railway companies an opportunity of earning a revenue which they could never have earned under ordinary circumstances and have never earned in the past.
A large part of the revenue is attributable directly to the carriage of war materials and the conveyance of members of His Majesty's Forces on behalf of the Government, and if out of the total net revenue it is possible to provide for the undertakings as much as £56,000,000, that is entirely because they have been given a monopoly owing to the circumstances of the war and the restrictions imposed upon road traffic. If it were not

for the fact that road traffic has been severely restricted in the matter of petrol supplies, and severely limited in all sorts of other ways, the railway companies would not have this volume of traffic. It is a present to them. It is unfair that in time of war the railway companies alone should be allowed to make these large profits at the expense of the public. Why should they be allowed to profit out of our war needs? It seems to me to be a clear case of profiteering, and it is not even certain that they will be liable for Excess Profits Tax; indeed, I gathered from a statement made by the former Chancellor of the Exchequer that the railway companies would not be liable for Excess Profits Tax. Here, again, they have a tremendous advantage over every other commercial undertaking. It would be equitable to fix the maximum revenue in the same way as the standard income is fixed for Excess Profits Tax, so that the railway companies could not make additional profits out of the war. In that case the maximum revenue which the companies would be allowed to earn would not exceed £40,000,000.
Under Clause 9 of the "Outline of the Financial Arrangements," provision is made for permitting the undertakings to charge the cost of restoring war damage up to a maximum of £10,000,000 in any one year. Here, again, preferential treatment is being given to the railway companies over private concerns. I believe the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has that point in mind, but I am dealing with the Agreement as it was made. Other concerns have to make good their war damage out of their own revenue. If they are lucky, they will get some part of the damage made good to them at the end of the war—if our financial resources permit. It is only the railway companies which are having their war damage made up to them now. Again I fail to see why the railway companies should be put in this exceptionally favourable position.
I come to Clause 10 of the Agreement, which is, perhaps, the most indefensible of all. It provides that the railway companies may charge increased rates and fares as working costs increase, but there is no provision for taking into account any increased revenue which they receive. Whether increased income is regarded as spreading the overheads over a wider field, or whether it is regarded as addi-


tional profit for extra work done—as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's predecessor said on one occasion—to ignore it entirely as a factor in deciding upon increases in railway charges cannot possibly be fair or be justified. I could understand an argument that only some of the increased revenue should be taken into account—though I should not agree with it—but to ignore the whole of it seems quite unjustifiable.
Then the Minister has provided machinery for dealing with applications by the Railway Executive Committee for increased fares and rates, following upon any increase in working expense. Under a regulation issued by his predecessor the Minister may refer the matter to a committee which is called the Charges (Railway Control) Consultative Committee—a rather difficult name for a body with rather difficult functions. On the other hand, as in the case of the first increase of 10 per cent. on 1st May, the Minister may decide in his own absolute discretion not to hold an investigation at all, but to allow the increased fares without further discussion. Where he does refer the matter to this Consultative Committee for inquiry I have no hesitation at all, having attended the last inquiry, in describing the inquiry as an absolute farce. The reference to the committee is limited and restricted. They are told the amount of money which has to be found; that is settled by the Minister, and they cannot argue about it or investigate it. They have no power to satisfy themselves that that figure is right. They are given the figure of the amount which it is required to raise by increased fares and railway charges, and the only question before them is how those charges are to be increased. Usually it is a matter of simple arithmetic. If the Consultative Committee are good at mathematics, they can settle the matter without any evidence at all. In fact, all the evidence which I heard at the last inquiry, which somehow was allowed to extend over eight days, was entirely unnecessary and irrelevant. The work of the committee could have been done in half an hour—by doing an ordinary sum in arithmetic. To speak of such an inquiry as a farce is, I think, appropriate.
Moreover, the Minister, in considering an application from the companies, or in settling the amount to be raised in respect

of increased costs of working, is an interested party. I do not say that he is personally interested; it is not suggested that any of the money goes into his own pocket; but he is an interested party, because an increase in the revenue of the railway companies increases the total profits out of which the Exchequer take a share. After a certain amount of profit has been provided for the railway companies £43,500,000—the right hon. and gallant Gentleman goes fifty-fifty with the railway companies in their profits. Therefore, it is not in the public interest, it certainly does not appear to be justice, for the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to have in his own hands the power to increase these charges at his own discretion without necessarily taking the matter to a committee. I submit that that is giving him the power of imposing indirect taxation upon railway users, a power which I am sure he himself would not welcome. Therefore, it is all the more necessary that the public should have an opportunity of checking the figures put forward as justifying an increase in railway rates, which they certainly have not under the Agreement, and at the last inquiry any attempt by any of the parties appearing there to challenge the figure submitted by the right hon. and gallant Member as the amount to be made up was promptly, and quite properly having regard to the terms of reference, ruled out of order.
It is interesting, by the way, to note the increases in net revenue of the railway undertakings in war time. In the first six months of 1939 the total net revenue of the railway undertakings was £14,900,000. In the first six months of 1940 the total net revenue was £20,800,000, an increase of nearly £6,000,000, or about 40 per cent. Of this increase of £6,000,000, only £3,250,000 came from the 10 per cent. increase in charges operating in May and June. So even if there had been no increase of charges in the first six months of 1940 the railway companies would still have had a profit higher by £2,679,000 than in the corresponding period of 1939. Under the Agreement the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is not allowed to take that fact into consideration. Even though the railway companies were making higher profits he would still have to increase railway charges. I submit that it is an impossible Agreement to operate. The increase of 10 per cent.,


at any rate, looking at the first six months of the war, was quite unnecessary, and was taken from the pockets of the travelling public.
So much for what the White Paper contains. I should like now to say a word or two about some of its omissions, which are equally striking. First of all, there is no statement in the financial arrangements as to the financial terms on which the railway companies are to carry goods and members of the Forces holding free tickets or cheap vouchers. I do not know on what terms they carry this passenger traffic and all the goods, but a great deal depends on the terms which the Government pay for these things. As a large part of the traffic of the railway companies to-day consists of Government traffic of that sort, this is a weighty matter going to the root of the financial arrangements.
There is nothing to suggest that the public, who are, after all, a very big factor in this matter, have any interest in the arrangements at all. They have no right or opportunity to check up on any increase in cost. They have no right to suggest that railway costs may be extravagant in any direction and that economies may be effected. They have no opportunity of suggesting any particular line of economy. Indeed, there is very little incentive on the part of the railway companies to introduce economies, seeing that they can recover from the travelling public the whole of any increase in cost. There is nothing in the Agreement to require the companies to exercise economy. In fact, under the terms of the financial arrangements, the companies are automatically entitled to take any increase in their costs from the pockets of the travelling public.
There is no statement as to what Government control really means or how it operates. What control have the Government really over the railway companies? For instance, can they decide which particular trains shall run or whether services are or are not inadequate? They may or may not be able to do so, but, at any rate, the public does not know and this House does not know what the control really means. I submit that this House should be told what is, in fact, the nature of the control. These omissions are of the greatest importance, but the public is left in ignorance of them and of the other

provisions of the Agreement, which has not been published. I suggest that if there are any secret clauses in this arrangement they should be brought to the light of public knowledge.
I do not see how any Minister who was concerned at all with the public interest could possibly have approved of the financial arrangements which have been published. The Press was practically unanimous in condemning them as contrary to the public interest. At various dates, the "Times," the "Daily Telegraph," the "Financial News," the "Daily Herald," the "News Chronicle," the "Financial Times," the "Economist," the "Statist," the "Daily Express," the "Evening News" and the "Liverpool Post," a pretty wide selection, and many others, have condemned this Agreement. Perhaps a conclusive indication of the great boon which the financial terms have been to the railway companies, in the eyes of the investing public at any rate, is the way in which railway stocks rose after the terms of the Agreement became known, as compared with their pre-war prices. Let me quote a few examples. L.M.S. ordinary stock, which on 22nd August, 1939, stood at 12, was 21¼ in February, 1940, an increase of 77.1 per cent. L.N.E.R. 5 per cent. preferred ordinaries were 3⅞, in August and 7¾ when the agreement became known, an increase of 100 per cent. L.N.E.R. 4 per cent. first preference was 28, and rose to 58, an increase of 107.1 per cent. Southern deferred ordinaries were 12, and rose to 20, an increase of 66.7 per cent. The average increase all round was substantially over 66 per cent. If any further indication were needed of the way in which finance regarded the Agreement, I submit that it is here.
The Agreement has been described by a person in a very responsible position in this House as
a fraud on the community … a robbery of the railway user … a scandal … foolish and wicked.
Also, there were various other epithets to which I do not feel I can add. It may interest the House to know that the author of those epithets is the present Home Secretary and Minister of Home Security. I am sure that the words will carry very great weight with the right hon. and gal-


lant Gentleman. The Minister will have an opportunity very shortly of revising the Agreement, under Clause 12. I am sure he will have the House with him if he announces to-day, if he finds himself able to do so, that he intends to revise it on the lines I have suggested. Of course, if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman in his wisdom, should feel impressed by the case that I made earlier in my speech for national ownership, I hope that he will carry that measure into effect rather than revise the Agreement; but if he feels that he cannot, at any rate at this stage, accept national ownership, I hope that he will find himself in agreement on this part of my case.
Having disposed of the financial arrangements, I hope conclusively, may I very shortly refer to some of the unfortunate consequences of the Agreement which have already taken place and which will be accelerated if the Agreement is allowed to continue? First of all, and perhaps most important, is the inflationary effect of an increase in railway rates. Such an increase means not only an increase in fares but an increase in the carriage of all forms of goods which are consumed by the general public and which are required for our war effort. All these increases affect prices and, in due course, justify demands for increased wages on account of the higher cost of living. While I do not want to encourage employés of railway companies to make an application for increased wages, I feel that the Government are providing them straight away with some sort of a case for making such an application. So the vicious spiral, which everyone is most anxious to avoid. is being begun and encouraged by this Agreement.
Of the £44,500,000 increase in railway costs estimated to take place by September, 1941, over one-third is made up of increases in cost of coal and steel used by the railway companies themselves. The inevitable result of an increase of 16 per cent. in railway charges will be that the cost of coal and steel will go up. This in itself will afford a justification for an application by the Railway Executive Committee for a further increase in charges, owing to further increases in cost. There is no end to this process. It can go on indefinitely. Every time there is an increase in charges there

is an increase in the cost of raw materials for the railway companies, which justifies an application for a further increase. If that is not inflation gone mad, I do not know what is. The Government are most anxious to avoid inflation. In answer to a Question to-day the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade stated that the Government were spending £80,000,000 a year in subsidising foods of various sorts in order to avoid inflation.
One of the first acts of the Government in September, 1939, was to pass a Measure to prevent increases in rents. That was a Measure devised to prevent inflation. After this enormous expenditure of £80,000,000 a year of public money, I submit that any inflationary effect of the Railways Agreement should be strongly condemned and prevented. Where persons are unable to recoup themselves by increased wages for increased costs, travelling costs and prices, there is a definite and serious hardship on a large proportion of such persons, particularly workers.
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is no doubt aware that in London no less than £15 per annum per family is spent in railway fares as an average. The proportion of the income of working-class families is something like 8 per cent., a very substantial figure. The same holds true to a less extent as regards workers in all the large cities in this country. There has been a tendency, as is well known, for working-class dwellings to be moved further from the centre of the towns and cities. In every large city there are large housing estates on the outskirts, and there is a heavy burden on the workers to pay their fares for getting into the centre where their work lies. In the last few years that tendency has been very much increasing, and I must confess that, in another capacity, I was responsible, as chairman of the Housing Committee of the London County Council, for a good deal of it. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman must take this factor into consideration. The working-class public cannot afford to pay any more in fares and extra charges for goods.
I want to say a word about members of the Forces who are on leave and who are hard hit by the increases. There is a tendency—and I do not know whether it is deliberate—to send men as far as possible from their homes. I have two


sons. One has been sent to Belfast. I do not think he could have been sent any further. The other has been sent to Cardiff. When they come home on leave—not the free leave but the so-called half rate—they have to pay the fare out of their own pockets, and it is a very heavy burden. I was very surprised the other day when the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, answering a Question, said that members of the Forces would have to bear the extra percentage in their fares. While I am referring to this matter, may I make it clear that the so-called half rate is really a misnomer? It is half the single rate, but, seeing that the ordinary return fare is one and a third times the single rate, a member of the Forces pays double the single rate in a return journey. Therefore, what he really gets is a three-quarter rate and not a half rate. The sooner that illusion is exploded, the better. If we intend to give members of the Forces a half rate, let us really do so and not give them a three-quarter rate.
Then there are all sorts of devices for extracting additional fares from people who travel which are, I submit, unjustified. For instance, the other day, a constituent of mine was visiting his family, which had been officially evacuated to Bideford. As he had five days' leave—he is working in the Post Office—he tried to get a cheap ticket. If he had been able to get a cheap ticket, it would have cost 20s. 8d. He was told that if he wanted to go to Bideford for two days, he could take advantage of this cheap rate, but as he wanted to go for five days he had to pay the full fare, which was 38s. 3d. If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman could show me that there is any sense in that, I would be greatly obliged. This man does not go by a special train; he goes by any train and comes back by any train. What on earth does it matter to the railway company or to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman whether this man stays away two days or five days? There are all sorts of devices of that sort to extract extra money from the pockets of the public. Let me give another example. Some weeks ago, if you wanted to go from Waterloo to Woking, you were told that you could not go direct but that you would have to go to Wimbledon and pay the ordinary fare to Wimbledon. When you got to Wimbledon you could take a ticket to

Woking, the fare for which was the same as that from Woking to Waterloo, so that the railway company were in pocket to the extent of the single fare from Waterloo to Wimbledon. Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman explain that?

The Minister of Transport (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon): No, Sir.

Mr. Silkin: It is a fact. If you want to go from London to Barnet, I am not sure about the exact fare, but it is about 2s.; from Barnet to London you pay Is. On the other hand, on exactly the same line, if you want to go from London to Morden, you pay 1s., and if you want to go from Morden to London, you pay 1s. All these things exasperate the public. They see no justification for them, and they regard them as just another means of getting additional money out of their pockets.
There is another way by which people are made to pay more, and that is by being compelled to break a journey. If I want to go to my office, I cannot go by an ordinary bus because the buses are all full up. I have tried it; I have waited as long as half-an-hour to get on to a direct bus to my office; in the end I got on a bus to Charing Cross and tried my luck there. But in breaking the journey it cost me an additional penny. I do not make any complaint about that, but for some people an extra penny every day is an important factor. There is no reason why these pennies should be extracted from people's pockets. Moreover, under present conditions travelling is necessarily difficult and inconvenient. Normal means of travelling are not often available. People have to put up with all sorts of hardships, and I submit that a time when the ordinary facilities are not available and when people are putting up with so much hardship is not the time when extra money should be taken from their pockets.
I know that since the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has been in office he has made an attempt to improve travelling conditions in London by orthodox and even unorthodox means, as one would expect, but I must tell him that on many days in London at any rate—I am not able to speak for other towns—travelling has completely broken down. People are not able to get to their work or to get home. If one's staff say they are an hour


late because they have not been able to get to the office beforehand, one has to accept that explanation, because one knows that one may be in the same position on another day. That is not good enough. At the beginning of the war services were reduced. It was desired, I believe, to prevent unnecessary travelling. My experience is that the person who will travel unnecessarily will travel anyway, and a reduction in travelling facilities will not deter him. But people have been prevented from getting to and from their work. The effect of this reduction of travelling facilities has been a very decided drop in the war effort. It means as much as an hour or an hour-and-a-half a day in many cases, and I hope that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will recognise the vital importance of this matter and, if necessary, not only increase travelling facilities but increase them above prewar level. It is more important to-day that no time should be wasted than it was even before the war.
I want to summarise my remarks. I have put them to the Minister in the course of my speech, and I think it would be convenient if I now put them concisely. First of all, I submit that the transport system as a whole should be unified and reorganised to secure the greatest efficiency in the national interest under public ownership and control. I hope the Government may accept this, at any rate in principle, but if it is not accepted at the present time, then I would ask for a revision at the end of this year of the financial arrangements between the Gvernment and the railway companies, to provide first for a guarantee to the companies, if at all, of not more than £34,000,000 a year net revenue, and a maximum revenue of £40,000,000; secondly, for increases in gross revenue to be set off against increases in working costs. Further, a proper and reasonable economy should be effected, and increases in working costs should not be recognised if proper economies have not been made. Then all agreements and details of account should be made public, with full opportunities for the public to investigate and criticise. Then the public interest should be a factor in considering any application for increased charges, and no increases which are contrary to the public interest should be permitted. All applica-

tions should be considered in public by a tribunal such as the Railway Rates Tribunal, with unlimited and unrestricted terms of reference. Air-raid damage should not be a charge against working costs.
I also ask the Minister to consider assuming control of all road transport, to consider the removal of all outstanding fare anomalies such as I have mentioned by way of example, and also to improve and revolutionise travelling facilities. For some time prior to the war the hoardings were plastered with appeals for a "square deal" for the railway companies. They have had their square deal. The tables have turned. It is now the public which appeals to the Minister of Transport for a square deal, and I am confident that the Minister, with his courage and independence, will not let the public down.

Sir Ralph Glyn: I am sure that the House has listened to the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Slkin) with great interest. I know the considerable part he played recently in the examination with regard to increased rates. I want to preface my remarks by saying that I am speaking entirely as an individual, although, as the House knows, I have been associated with railways, and I always feel very diffident, because I think that anybody connected with a great industry ought to disclose the fact whenever he speaks in the House. Perhaps because of the frequency with which I have talked about railways during the years that I have been a Member there may be some who realise that I have that association. The hon. Gentleman who has just resumed his seat believes that public ownership is the right method. I do not think this is the occasion to be drawn into a discussion on the rights of private or public ownership. All I can say is that I still believe in private ownership. I still believe that there is something to be said for competition, and I still believe that the railway shareholders have made a great contribution to the industries of the country by investing money at a very low rate of return. Throughout the hon. Gentleman's speech he never said a word to show that the people with the choice of investing think it better from a national point of view to invest in a railway company than to invest, say, in dog racing. Anyone who has invested in railways has done something to help.
It is also unfortunate that so far no single word has been said about the men. There is an opportunity for making some declaration about the wonderful work which the men have done. I do not think the public have been properly informed, and that is one of the misfortunes which arise from the present system under which the railways are controlled. The public should be made aware of the daily risks which are run by the men without any demands for what is called "danger pay" or any nonsense of that sort. There have been cases where damage has been done to junctions, when the permanent-way men have come out of their houses where they have gone to rest after a hard day's work, have worked because they have an esprit de corps feeling about the railway, and have restored the line so that the public can get to their work again. The railways have a very bad Press now. I do not know why, but we seem to he hated by everybody for no just cause. Because newspapers have not been delivered, the blame has been put on the railway companies. I know one popular paper which has a good deal of push and go and whose editorials have been crammed with abuse of the railways. Actually I know of a case where a newspaper train was kept waiting, with the driver and fireman exposed, because of a plaintive request from a newspaper office to hold up the train because they were a hit late by reason of the air raids, and they wanted to get their copies on the train. The only thanks the railway company got was abuse because the paper was late, and they said the railway was not ready to take it. Let us have fair play; let us recognise what the men have really done.
The position of the railway companies has not been mentioned. It is totally different from that of any ordinary company, because it does not come under the Companies Acts. Each railway company operates under an Act of Parliament. Not one word was mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, when he implored my right hon. and gallant Friend to take over the railways, as to whether there was to be any compensation. Was it to be a case of snatch and grab?

Mr. Silkin: I said "reasonable compensation."

Sir R. Glyn: I missed that part. I think it is true to say that for the capital

invested, the shareholders in the railways with moderate and small means are probably larger in number than the investors in anything else, and those who have the interests of the railways at heart, from the point of view of the stockholders, must feel that it is necessary that those people who have invested savings in railway stock should at any rate have some slight recognition. Another curious feature is this, if I may make a personal reference. My own forebear, my grandfather, who was the Member for Kendal and sat for many years in this House, was the first chairman of the London and Birmingham Railway, and was a great friend of the Stephenson brothers. He had a great discussion with Mr. Gladstone, who, 96 years ago this year, introduced into the House of Commons a Bill which gave the Government power to nationalise or purchase for the State any railway, with certain small provisions. I think it had to be in existence before 1840, and there were also a few other minor provisions. In fact, however, it was never done. Therefore, for 96 years there have been in this House and outside people who have been urging the nationalisation of the railways but who have never been able to analyse. Even the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister after the last war said something about nationalisation, but he never had the opportunity of going into the details of how he proposed to do it.
I suppose I am the oldest railway company director in this House—the oldest, not in age, but in service in a railway company—and I was a member of the Committee which, in 1921, sat for weeks and weeks on the amalgamation of the constituent companies. That enabled me to have a view of what were the circumstances of Government control during the war between 1914 and 1918. The House will probably remember that control then was totally different from what it is now, and was, I think, infinitely better than it is now. That is a personal view and must not be taken as representing the view of any of my colleagues on the board of a railway. When the railways were previously controlled they were taken over under what I think was called the Defence Forces Act and the Regulation of the Forces Act, 1871. The great difference was that the Railway Executive Committee did not consist of people who


had been interested in the railways, as is the case to-day, when it includes a retired ex-general manager and, as secretary, a gentleman who was associated with another railway company. It was the President of the Board of Trade who protected the public interest by himself being the chairman and the president of the council which controlled the railways. The railways then were far greater in number than they are to-day, but the general managers, officers and supervisory staff of each railway functioned as they had always functioned, but under the general direction of the Railway Executive Committee presided over by the President of the Board of Trade.
When the war ended it was, I think, in 1919 that the Ministry of Transport was created, and from that date the Minister of Transport took over the duties from the President of the Board of Trade and himself assumed control. I believe that that worked very well. An even more interesting thing—and I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman opposite in his arguments about inflation—was that during the last war period of control no rates or charges were increased throughout, except for passengers, when in 1917 fares were deliberately raised in order to check an increased amount of travel which was not considered necessary. Otherwise, there was no increase in rates or charges at all, and, speaking personally, I regret that they were increased the other day. That was my personal view; I thought it was a foolish step which ought not to have been taken, and I said so. However, the railways themselves are not in control of their own affairs; there is instead a bureaucratic control over which there is no control by anybody. We all recognise, of course, that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport has only just assumed office, and we also recognise that he is faced with a most terrible problem. I am perfectly sure that there is nobody in this House who is more likely to solve it with success than is the present Minister, and we are all delighted to see him there. That must not be taken as the view of anybody interested in railways. The House knows that he takes a perfectly fair and even view.
Another point which I should like to mention in passing is the position that

we shall be faced with in regard to the enormous amount of motorised traffic. Why are these difficulties confronting the railways? Why is it that we are not getting coal South of the Thames? Why is it that the hon. Gentleman finds it difficult to get from London to Dorking, or wherever it was? The reason is partly enemy action, and the public are not informed by the Ministry of Information—very properly, perhaps—of the damage done to railway lines. In the morning you go to the station assuming that you are going to get your train and reach your destination without being late for the office. You may propose to do that, but Hitler is disposed to do something else, and there may have been incidents that have made it impossible. The miracle that has occurred is, not that you have been late for the office, but that, thanks to the railwaymen, you have been able to get there at all. I wish somebody would say that more often.
In a time of national emergency I believe, with the hon. Gentleman, that railways are the lifeblood of the country. I do not believe that there are any bloated capitalists lurking behind to spring out on anybody and try to drive a hard bargain. I believe we all want to put all we can into the national effort, and I believe it would be far better if the principles in force during the last war had been adopted. There ought to be some real thinking going on as to what is going to happen after the war, in regard for instance to road mechanised traffic. How many hon. Members realise that when the railways were asking for a square deal they were doing so simply and solely because traffic which, from the point of view of national economy, should never have left a steel rail, was going along the roads, to the destruction of the roads and the detriment of the ratepayers. The whole question at issue was that of traffic leaving the privately-owned permanent way, not maintained out of the rates and taxes but kept up by the much despised shareholders, and being transferred to the public roads, which are maintained by the public by taxes and rates.
We all realise that a very grave situation has arisen at the present time. The burden on the railways is tremendous, partly owing to the requisitioning of motor vehicles by the Army, partly owing to the fact that there are no spare parts avail-


able for lorries, and a great many are being laid up, while those that are running are not running in such a smooth way as to be very good for the roads on which they are working. I feel, therefore, that we are faced in the immediate future with a still further increase of traffic on the railways. Our coastwise trade used to be conveyed in coasting vessels and distributed through the smaller ports, and one of the most remarkable changes that have lately taken place because of internal combustion and Diesel engines has been the number of small collier craft that have been able to get up small rivers and resuscitate a great many towns that had gone to sleep but which, in the old days of sail, used to be flourishing little ports. These vessels have mostly been taken over by the Admiralty for minesweeping and the like, and the result has been that the flow of traffic has been cast on the railways at a time when they are most congested.
The right hon. Gentleman who is now Minister of Labour is, in private life, head of one of the best-managed trade unions in the country. A great many members of railway staffs belong to his trade unions, but at the expense of another great and important union, the N.U.R. I have watched with considerable interest the dexterity with which the various leaders of these two great unions have put their goods in the shop window for the notice of those who might be candidates for membership of one or the other. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour has always been in favour of what the hon. Gentleman mentioned just now, namely, that if you must take a bite at all, open your mouth wide enough and swallow down the whole of the forms of transport. If you are to have public ownership, do not restrict it only to the railways. Take the whole cherry—or two cherries—in one big bite. If this is going to be done, it is high time the House began to think of what is to happen when the war is over. I believe that all of us should put aside what used to be our party political bias. I do not think any of us expect the old order to continue. I think we all believe that a new order is coming, but I should be terribly sorry to think that the country does not and will not recognise that so much has been done by the principles—virtues, if you like—of private enterprise and by the initiative, that comes from the knowledge that you

can get on, rather than by some sort of duffer's standard of bureaucratic control.
I think it must be recognised that if the transport of this country is really to be built up, the kind of error mentioned by the hon. Gentleman just now must for ever be prevented. If great housing estates are to be built, the railways must be consulted. At Dagenham, which was built by the county council, strangely enough the railways were never consulted as to what the travelling facilities would be before the site was acquired. It would have been very much better if they had been, because it would then have been possible for stations to be built and planned along with the housing scheme. The same should apply in regard to bus traffic. I remember very well what used to be said by the then general manager when I was associated with the old Underground railways: he said that so long as the workers lived on the perimeter of the town, and not in the centre from which they ought to radiate, problems of rates and traffic would always exist. While a lot of ridiculous rates were quoted—and I quite agree there were some foolish ones—the thing that matters is that the workmen's fare has really done a tremendous lot to help the mobility of labour, and we have to recognise that the mobility of labour is a very important thing. It must also be remembered that the elongated terminus is the only terminus that really counts, and it may be that the bombing of London will give us an opportunity of thinking afresh about these matters. But not, I hope, in the way of narrow party political prejudice. If it can be done cheaply, by somehow or another transforming the existing shareholders into a new form of public utility, with a larger amount of public control and with the assistance of organised labour, the concurrence of the investing public and the confidence of the country, then I think something worth while will be achieved.
In conclusion, I bitterly regret that the present Railway Executive Committee is not formed on the same basis as that which existed in the last war, and that increased rates and charges are being levied at a time when all of us desire to see inflation avoided and when there is no excuse for one demand after another. I feel, however, that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman who has this problem to, solve will solve it, I am certain, with


greater success than any other Member of this House. It is our duty frankly to recognise that, in seeking this new order, we must take all the experience we can bring from the past and, without prejudice, throw everything we have into the rebuilding of England and making the transport of workers and all concerned in the reconstruction of the country the matter of prime importance which it really is. If we unite to do that, we shall win through after this war to the peace that we lost by muddling after the last war.

Mr. Clement Davies: May I take this opportunity of congratulating the right hon. and gallant Gentleman on his first appearance at that Box as Minister of Transport, and also of congratulating the Government, and especially the Prime Minister, on having called him to that Front Bench. I have felt for a very long time that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has sat for too many years in the shadows of the back benches. His office is one with very heavy duties, and one which might almost at the present time be called a key office, but it is one which gives the right hon. Gentleman very great opportunities. I am sure that we all wish him well; and, judging by his great record in the past, he will avail himself of his opportunities.
We have listened to two very remarkable speeches. I do not propose to follow the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) in the detailed criticism which he made in the first part of his speech. I am more attracted by the last part of his speech, and by the speech made by the hon. Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn). Transport is essential to industry. It has been called the handmaiden of industry. But there may be occasions when, instead of helping industry, it hampers industry. One has to inquire into these things with very great care. I do not want to go into details with regard to costs, or to the remuneration which is being paid, or to what the shareholders will gain. The question that appeals to me is, what service are the community getting to-day? The purpose of the railways is to serve the community. Too often that purpose has been hidden by concentrating upon the earning capacity of the railways and upon the dividends that they can pay to their shareholders. All the costs of transport are additional costs to industry.

Transport costs may be a burden not only on industry, but on the consumer. They add to the costs of the raw material and to the cost of the finished article. Every movement may increase those costs still further. Recently we have had considerable increase in costs. There was the increase of 1937 and there was the increase at the beginning of the war, and now there is the present proposal. We are getting to a stage at which the increase will have become, in the short space of three years, something in the neighbourhood of 25 per cent. Why should this great burden be thrown upon the community? Undoubtedly, in spite of the delightful reminiscences with which the hon. Member for Abingdon interested the House, there has been real lack of vision on the part of the railways in the past. They first relied upon their monopoly. When that broke down they came to Parliament and asked to have it, to a large extent, restored. If they had had any vision they would have been the first to seize upon the discovery of the internal combustion engine.

Sir R. Glyn: We were not allowed by Parliament to do so.

Mr. Davies: We all recognise that the railways are hampered by Acts of Parliament, but they have never lacked representatives in this House. Why did they not come to Parliament, to ask that those shackles should be removed?

Sir R. Glyn: They did so, three times.

Mr. Davies: At what stage? I should have thought that at the moment the internal combustion engine was discovered they would have said, "This is a matter which will revolutionise transport. We must take it up and develop it, and put all the force we can behind it." But they allowed it to be developed by other people, small people, going about from city to city to get the money for the purpose. If the railway companies had only had the vision, the modern motor car might have been developed 25 years ago. They woke up, however, only when the public had already realised the value of that means of transport. After the last war, when a great number of lorries were released and purchased and placed on the roads, only then did they come to this House. They say that an unfair privilege is given to the road vehicle as against the railway vehicle.


Instead of suggesting that we should relieve the railways, they suggest that we should put another shackle upon the lorry, to make it less effective, less useful to the consumer and to the producer and to the manufacturer. Transport is the handmaiden of industry, and therefore it should be available to industry in the most efficient and most economical form. Otherwise, it hampers industry. Not only was there the motor car. The railways should have been the first again to see the value of the aeroplane. But that was left to be developed by an individual here, a small company there, and a syndicate somewhere else. There has been real lack of vision on the part of the railway companies.

Mr. Lyons: And there is to-day.

Mr. Davies: And there is to-day. The hon. Member for Abingdon, very rightly, reminded the House that he is a director of a railway company. How many of those directors are full-time men? Apart from the managing director or manager himself, the directors of a company are al part-time, coming up once in a while to attend to matters of vital concern. The hon. Member adopted a phrase used by the hon. Member for Peckham—"It is the lifeblood of the nation." If so, it deserves the full time of the directors, and not merely an occasional five minutes, or one day in a month. It is time the railway companies put their house in order. To-day they have about 10,250 railway vehicles. They have horse carts to the number of 25,000 still in existence. Those are the figures for 1938. On the other hand, what has happened to the lorry industry? In Class A—public lorries—there are 83,000. In Class B—that is, lorries owned by partnerships, with X in one place and Y in another place—the partnerships own 55,000 lorries. In Class C—the private category—there are 365,000 lorries. That is a total of 503,000 lorries on the road to-day. All that is transport service, but it is not transport service working with the one common object of serving the community. A large part of it is fighting against another part, causing waste, which we cold ill afford at any time and which we certainly cannot afford in time of war. If the railway companies had done their duty, they would have had those lorries, right from the outset, feed-

ing the railways, carrying loads, both ways. Then, there would have been less use of petrol, more economy of tyres and roads.
I suppose each of these private owners carries his own goods in the quickest way, and therefore he regards that system as the most efficient. That is why there are so many C licences. But the C licence is the most expensive from the point of view of the owners, the consumers, the producers and the general community, because such a lorry generally carries a load only one way, and returns empty. But, as a general rule, all these vehicles make daily journeys. There is an effort to keep them going constantly. What about the railways? How many journeys do the 10,000 railway trucks make, loaded, in a year? I am sure the House will be surprised to know that the average, at the most, is 56 journeys in a year—I have seen it put as low as 30 journeys in a year. Is that efficient working? This is largely due to the system of delivery at the small intermediate stations. The hon. Member does right to remind the House that the railway companies are the creatures of Act of Parliament, but why do not they come and explain the position to the House, and say, "Will you not change it, and give us greater freedom?" They do not wake up until 50 years after the event. It was right to have these little intermediate stations when the limit of a journey was the strength and endurance of the horse, but the motor car has been in existence for 40 years, and the limit has been tremendously extended. That does not seem to have been appreciated yet.
The position to-day is as follows—and I think it is due to the fact that the railways still have these little intermediate stations. Trucks, as a general rule, can carry 10 or 12 tons; but what is the average load of general merchandise carried by those trucks? Before I give that figure, let me give the figure with regard to coal trucks. An average load for them, year after year, is a fraction over nine tons of coal. But the average load of general merchandise, year after year, is only 2.8 tons—it has varied from 2.83 to 2.81, and sometimes it has been as low as 2.79 tons. Something under one-third of the capacity of the truck is carried. The railway engines are capable of drawing about


500 tons—some are capable even of drawing 1,000 tons—but the average weight drawn to-day is 124 tons. Look at the waste of effort. The average speed is only 9.1 miles per hour, against a capacity of about 30 miles per hour. Why is that? It is because you have these frequent stoppages and shuntings at one place or another. Suppose I want to send half a ton of goods to some little railway station on the line known as the Old Cambrian railway. What happens? There is the trouble of marshalling the trucks. The truck containing the goods is taken from junction to junction, until it reaches the main junction, at which it has again to be marshalled. At last the truck starts in a train going down the main line. But on the old Cambrian railway it stops at each station, it is shunted back and back again, a truck is taken off here and there, and that is the time taken for the delivery of half a ton of goods.
What I suggest as the remedy has been suggested time after time, and I do not know why it has not been adopted. It is that you should have main distributing stations at a distance of 25 or 30 miles. Let me give two examples—Swindon and Didcot. The distance between these two places is, I think, about 24 miles. Between these two places there are five stations, and you have the main line train going along there stopping at these five small stations, if necessary. All this could be done away with by having distributing or receiving stations, and having Swindon or Didcot as the main distributors. You would then have your lorries coming to this station, and in some instances you might over-carry and in others you might under-carry. That would be a very simple matter. I understand—and I will give the details which have been worked out by people interested in this matter, to the Minister of Transport—that the saving in money alone would amount to £17,000,000. There would be no necessity to put on the 6 and the 10 per cents. or to put the burden upon industry to-day, if the railways would adopt a system which any commercial concern would adopt to-day. The big industrial concerns in this country establish depots. They do not put a depot in every street or village, but they have one big distributing

depot, and from there they radiate out. I am told that what is true of the trans, port of goods is equally true of the transport of passengers, and that in the same way, instead of having these small intermediate stoppages, you would have your buses running between the main line stations. You would get a better service for the public and the saving, I understand, would amount to another £13,000,000. Therefore, there is a present of £13,000,000 in the better and more economical working than takes place to-day, and I really do not know why that system is not adopted.
There does not seem to be the coordination in transport that there ought to be. I would welcome the co-ordination of rail, road and water traffic. That ought to be. If you are to serve the community, you must give the community that mode of transport and service which serves them best and be the most economical, and you should work those systems together towards that common end. That is necessary at any time, and it will really be necessary during this war, and also when the new order comes which has been visualised. I would like my right hon. and gallant Friend the Minister of Transport to take more control. I want him to have under him an organisation of experts who would have a complete plan of what is required in the country—of the country itself, the needs of transport, the services to be rendered and the goods to be carried—and then to decide how they shall be worked. The attitude of the railways in the past has been that they have bent their heads over the rate books year after year until they can see nothing beyond the rate books. Whatever you ask you have to be referred back to the rate book to see what is the cost. I hope that we shall now see the end of the rate books and that they will be burnt.
There is another matter. It may be that we shall come to a position here when we shall have to have a flat rate to cover the whole country. May I give my right hon. and gallant Friend the instance of coal? An appeal was made to the country at large to order coal during the summer. After France had collapsed and Italy had entered the war the exports of coal therefore went down. The appeal that there should be early orders given for coal was intensified, but, unfortunately, though those orders were given, they have not been fulfilled, and to-day


the position is curiously this. If you order coal which, ordinarily, you would get from a nearby colliery and you cannot get it there, you will be told by the Ministry of Mines that you can get it from a further distance on condition that you pay for the longer haul. Why should there be that differentiation today? Why should there not be one price throughout? Time and time again, we are told that we are all in this war, but why is there this differentiation made in this way? We require more and more production. The people whose services are necessary for production will have to be carried to and from their work and homes. I sympathise very deeply with the statement made by the hon. Member in calling attention to the additional fares; even the extra penny amounting to Is. a week makes a difference to the workers. It may be found, before we go very much further, that, in order to obtain greater production and efficiency, we shall not only have to carry at lower rates, but I can see the time coming when we shall have to carry at no rates at all. Therefore, this is a matter for the Minister of Transport and nobody else. The truth is that at the present time the sacrifices are not equal and the community are not treated as a whole. There will have to be greater mobility both in respect of the carriage of people and of goods, but in all these matters I conclude by wishing the new Minister well in tackling this great subject.

The Minister of Transport (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon): It is with some trepidation that I approach this Box after so many years and in charge of a subject upon which, had I been a back bencher, I think I could have knocked the Minister about very severely. I do indeed thank my three hon. Friends for the kindness with which they referred to me personally and also for the mildness of the speeches which they have delivered. The first part of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) dealt with broad issues; the second one from a director of a railway company was, I think, probably one of the most extraordinary speeches we have heard in this House for many years; and the third one came from a Member of the House who obviously ought to have been a railway director for many years. I am sure that the House listened with interest to the many suggestions that he put forward. I always

think that the whole question of railways is looked upon in this country as if railways were a natural feature of the country, like the Thames or the mountains in South Wales. It was very well exemplified once in "Punch," where there was a girl on a station platform with her governess and she saw an aeroplane fly over, and she said, "That is the way I should like to travel." Whereupon her governess said "Certainly not. You travel by rail, as nature meant you to."
One has to remember that the railway was born in this country and that it was a great commercial adventure and gamble. Sometimes I think we do not pay enough respect to our great-grandfathers with their tall hats and their side whiskers They were prepared to gamble in an astonishing way in all sorts of things, including transport in this country, and they put railways there and built them here; in fact many railway directors would probably say that there are one-third more railways in this country than are really wanted. It was a legitimate private enterprise and speculation. I feel sometimes that to-day we are cast in a pigmy mould, because we cannot build railways anywhere, whereas our ancestors put up railways all over England. We ought to pay a tribute to the inventive genius of England. We have to remember that the four feet eight and a half inch gauge is adopted throughout the world—a remarkable tribute—and in France you will see trains passing each other on the left when they ordinarily pass on the right. The whole conception of this great form of transport started here, and, although in a country where the development of the land has to be dependent upon where the railway runs, there may be every reason for nationalising the railways, that is not how the system was built up in this country. We have to take the facts as we find them.
I very much regret that the suggestion which Mr. Gladstone made some 80 years ago, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) called attention, was not adopted then, because it would have alleviated my trouble at this Box to-day. In this question of private enterprise at the beginning we have to-day an example of almost the same thing. I refer to aeroplane construction. No one would have asked the Government to put money into aeroplane construction 15 years ago. It was almost


a bankrupt concern, but private people came along, and it is they who have saved us at the present moment. That is an example of that speculative private enterprise which is despised by many people to-day. When war comes along you have to harness every resource that you have in the country.
Just as private enterprise must not exploit us in times of great emergency, so, it is also right to say that we must not exploit it. We must give it as fair a deal as we can in all the circumstances. There are—I am not saying this in any criticism of any speech to-day—some people who think that it is the privilege of railway stockholders to keep their money invested in a concern of national importance but never to obtain a fair return on their capital. Some people look upon railway shareholders almost as enemies of the country.
I was not responsible for this Agreement. We have had a Debate already, when a very valuable contribution came from the present Home Secretary, all of whose words I have read and some of which I have committed to heart. I know his point of view, and I know that the Government's attitude to all these things is more realistic and less partisan than it was before. I would say this about the Agreement: it is true that the more I look at it the less I like it, but, on the other hand, the more I look at it the more difficult it is for me to find something better, short of the very drastic advocation of my hon. Friend opposite—that is, nationalisation. It is true to say that when war broke out a situation arose under which the railways were at last going to be able to show their worth to the State. I suppose it might be put in another way by saying that at last they were going to become a prosperous business. Many people say that they should have been denied this and that the railways should have been pinned so that they could not make any more money than they had done in their very worst years, especially the distressing year of 1938. It is true to say that from the shareholders' point of view the clammy hand of the State—and I am the clammy hand—has come down upon the railways. I am in complete control.
I think we ought to remember what happened during the last war. There we did actually pin the guarantee which my hon. Friend has been advocating. It was pinned at £48,000,000, and it is true to say that we did not have to increase charges. We had vouchers by which we could go everywhere for nothing, and so forth, but what happened afterwards? The Government had to pay £150,000,000, of which £60,000,000 was compensation for deferred upkeep, and the remaining £90,000,000 was to make up to the balance of £48,000,000 including payment for services rendered. In addition the charges of the railways went up over 100 per cent.
That is a very serious comparison with what we have to-day. First of all, there can be no claim by the railway companies against the Government after the war. We have cut down the guarantee to £40,000,000, and we have complete Government control. When we come to this question of the flat guarantee I would draw the attention of the House to this: If you are going to advocate a flat guarantee then with charges increased against you there is no other way of meeting that except by Government subsidy. You can have whichever you like. I have listened to the Debate with great interest to hear the opinions of some Members. I know myself that once you start subsidising the railways there is just no end to it, and I should have thought that if my hon. Friends opposite in future get complete control of the railways they would much rather take them over as a going concern than something which is bleeding the taxpayer by subsidy. If they ever got that, what sort of Government policy would it be, immediately you took over, to increase charges? But if you did not do that you would be increasing the contribution of the Exchequer day after day.
The Agreement is not, of course, a peace-time document; it is a war-time document, and I want it to be clearly understood that I am in complete charge. You can shoot at me for anything, from a late train to a matter of general policy. My charge operates through my Executive Committee, which is composed of general managers, with an ex-general manager at the top. It does not vary much from the one in the last war, of which Sir Herbert Walker, a railway manager, actually was chairman. You might think that the relationship between


myself and the railway companies is one in which there is difficulty. I would like to tell you straight away that that is not so. The Agreement makes the relationship between the actual companies and myself a somewhat difficult one, but I should like to pay my tribute to the chairmen of the railway companies, who carry on their job undisturbed by me unless I have to disturb them. I have met the chairmen of the railway companies, and although on the difficult question of functions there could be a theoretical dispute—not a practical dispute—I have found that they are only interested in the national effort which the railways can make for this country, and nothing else. I cannot say more for the chairmen than that, and I should like it reported as the position, because sometimes people say that that is not so.
I have been asked to publish the monthly returns of the railway companies. I do not want to do that, for these reasons. They would be entirely false, because the people who are considering these returns are trying to get, through them, a general outlook of the prosperity and conditions of the country. I do not want to do it, also, because I believe it would give a certain amount of information to the enemy as to the general position of our railways. The pool system of receipts makes it difficult to show each railway company's earnings. Also, there is the fact that we have pooled the 600,000 wagons which were privately owned before, in order to reduce the freight complications from the point of view of accountancy. Then there is this point; if you were to try to derive anything from these monthly returns, you might draw false conclusions owing to some action I had had to take with regard to the railways. Although things may go along on a steady basis, I might have to come along, for national reasons, and say, "No more passenger traffic for three days." That sort of thing would upset any conclusions drawn from the monthly returns, and I am sure the House will be convinced that it is best for me to keep these figures back and deal with them only on a six months' basis.
I have said before in this House, and I cannot help telling my hon. Friends again, how very careful one has to be in speaking about railway matters in the House of Commons, because before the words are out of one's mouth somebody

on the Stock Exchange takes an optimistic view and up go the shares, or takes a depressing view and down go the shares. Really, it is difficult to say anything without being misnterpreted. I noticed the other day that when I answered a Question in the House by saying that we must keep the railways in a healthy state that seemed to have a "bull" effect on the market, but that when they looked at my reply again and saw that I said the Agreement was in the melting-pot they thought rather better of it and the shares returned to their normal state—

Mr. G. Strauss: Why worry about these people?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: I am not worrying at all. I think we must consider this thing apart from Stock Exchange considerations. Whatever the vicissitudes of the war, and the changes which peace may bring, it is the aim of the Government to have an active and progressive transport system, not a heap of junk to be bought up. The Agreement contained from the beginning machinery for increasing charges if costs increased owing to the war. I know quite well that that has to be wrapped up with the question of inflation. Let us look and see what these charges were. Quite a lot, I admit—£46,000,000 extra charges—but I cannot help pointing out that of this no less than £20,000,000 is for increased wages and that a great part of the balance is for increased cost of raw materials. I do not think one can say that when wages are being increased and the cost of everything is going up you can have one particular industry along that spiral in which there is a gap. If you are not going to allow the railways to deal with extra expenses due to wartime operation you have to meet that situation by another means, and that is by Government subsidy.

Mr. Silkin: Would the right hon. and gallant Gentleman consider setting off against increased costs extra revenue? That is the real point.

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: That is not part of the Agreement. Under the arrangements the first £3,500,000 after the £40,000,000 goes to the companies. Subsequent profits up to a gross figure of £68,500,000 are split between the two parties—the State and the railways. I hope my hon. Friend does not think that I and the Financial Secretary


to the Treasury, in a hypothetical case where you may get up to £56,000,000, and consequently will be able to divide something with the railways, will want increased fares. That is a preposterous idea. I can imagine nothing more objectionable than asking for more fares; I have done it once, and I sincerely hope I shall not have to do it again. It has been asked why, if other industries have to pay for their own damage, should the railways be allowed to increase their charges to pay for their damage? I think the first reason is that any ordinary business can wait, but the railways cannot wait. They have to do repairs immediately and keep communications going. It is because of that that the £10,000,000 arrangement was made, limiting the amount which would be offset by increased charges. It seems to me a curious figure to state. I cannot tell you whether the railways' war damage is likely to be more or less than £10,000,000 per year, but that was the guarantee—that no more than this sum should be borne by increased charges. I may say that if it had got up to £10,000,000 it could have automatically meant another 5 per cent. on fares.
That is the reason why I have not been able to publish the Agreement in full. It is in draft, and there is no difference between the railway companies and ourselves. It would have been printed by now if it had not been for the contributory insurance scheme, which spreads the risk over the whole country. It affects one of the main parts of the Agreement, and until we have fuller details and know from the Treasury how it works into the general idea, I cannot complete the Agreement. In part it is true to say that it is in the melting-pot, but I do not think one can look upon it as an entirely new Agreement orientated from another point of view than is contemplated at the present moment. I am sorry not to oblige hon. Members on that score.

Mr. G. Strauss: Is it the case that the only change contemplated in the present agreement is a change arising from that war damage Clause, and that otherwise the main principles of the agreement will stand?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: That is the present intention. I do not think

I can be accused of having in the past looked at transport from a party point of view, or through spectacles coloured with one particular ideal or another. I remember that when the London Passenger Transport Board was set up. I had a great quarrel with my old chief, who was at one time Minister of Transport, and he wrote very stinging letters to me on the matter. But the scheme went through and I do not regret it, because I am certain that the establishment of the London Passenger Transport Board was a thoroughly desirable form of organisation. It does not go the whole hog, as hon. Members opposite might like, but it is between the extreme on the one side and the extreme on the other, which is the genius of our race. As Minister of Transport, I am also allowed to dream and think about transport, and in our desire to see everything working together, one naturally says to oneself, "London Transport—why not a Birmingham Transport board, a Manchester transport board, a Liverpool transport board? Why not a railways transport board to join up all these various transport boards?" That would be quite ridiculous unless one brought in the canals, and then the whole proposition would be self-defeating if one did not bring in the roads. In connection with the roads, the "A" and "B" licences are fairly easy to understand, but I have had difficulty in understanding exactly what would happen in the cases of "C" licences; whether one is allowed to carry eggs to market on one's own bicycle, I do not quite know.

Mr. Lathan: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman overlooking the mutually beneficial arrangements in regard to road transport that have been come to between the road transport authorities and the railways? Does he not think they could be extended?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: I am sure they could. We are getting on very well on those lines. I am trying to paint a picture of what goes on in our minds. If the roads were linked up with the railways in various transport boards, then the ports would have to be included, because they are wrapped up with the railways; we should have to get the coastal services in, and from that we should have to go on to the cross-channel routes, and


eventually shipping. One starts with a picture and in the end one finds oneself painting a fresco of immense size. That is what really alarms me at the present time, although I do not think that, from the point of view of post-war consideration of these problems, we should be frightened by their magnitude. What I am frightened about is the question of personnel. When these things become bigger and bigger, where are you going to get personnel? They will be the same people. The problems will be extremely difficult to overcome; it will be difficult even to settle, for instance, the rates to be charged by such an organisation. It seems to me that somehow we shall have to start breeding a sort of super-Stamp, a sort of big postal order. Already the problem of management is becoming almost a superhuman one. But I do not intend to say to-day whether or not I enthusiastically advocate a thing of that sort. I have studied these things—

Mr. Mathers: Including air transport?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: Yes—but when one comes down to brass tacks, the only thing that really matters is whether the 1.30 train arrives to time and runs safely, and whether the engine driver's wages are as good as they were before. Apart from the theoretical side, that is all that matters. I agree that there are a great many economies which could be brought about by making things work together and by saving money in various directions. That is all I wish to say at present. I have not been at this Ministry long; indeed, when anybody addresses me as a right hon. Gentleman, I do not think I am being spoken to; I am still in that stage, and with my day-to-day troubles it is quite out of the question seriously to consider an immense piece of constructive legislation on that subject. I implore hon. Members, therefore, that for the present we may debate these questions of national ownership and other things with regard to transport purely academically. I feel that I have not satisfied the hon. Member who opened the Debate, but that is all I shall say on that subject to-day.
There are one or two questions I would like to answer. With regard to the Excess Profits Tax, my right hon. and gallant Friend the Financial Secretary has said

that the railways are subject to the tax. The spreading of overheads is a very technical accounting point. It is true that if one's business increases, one carries things cheaper per head by virtue of the spreading of overheads. This was not put into the Agreement, and the benefit was given to the railways. If we were to allow the spread of overheads to count as an offset against increased profits, we should have to admit claims by the railway companies for increases in charges where diminution of traffic affected overheads in the contrary direction. Consequently, it was thought better to leave this. The Government charges will be published. They are not of very great interest; they are only bulk usage charges. As to the Stock Exchange point, that is always made against this Agreement, I think the point is not really a true one. At the time I believe that all stocks were at knock-out prices, and that if anybody had made a speech in the House saying that he anticipated fine weather for three weeks, the situation might have reacted. I do not think people are going to get very rich as a result of this particular Agreement.
I should like now to say a few words about operational difficulties, which are tremendous. There is, first of all, the movement of troops. There is the great supply organisation of industry, demanding a tremendous amount of goods upon the railways, all flowing in the wrong way, with the ports on the West Coast delivering things to the East, which is unnatural, and cuts against all the natural routes of the railways. The movement of goods traffic is, of course, playing havoc with ordinary passenger services. The goods trains take preference to-day over most things. That explains why passenger trains have suffered. One thing from which I suffer as Minister is that although everybody is subject to ghastly travelling troubles, I am never allowed to tell them what is the matter. That is the case in London more than anywhere else. The Prime Minister has told us that one in 700 people in London is killed. We know what a number of bombs it takes to kill one person. One can imagine what damage is done to the London transport system as a whole when one considers that a railway viewed from the air is a relatively easy target. It has been a tremendous and wonderful fight, and if we


get three or four days without trouble, then we lick our wounds and get going again—only to get another chance hit upon some critical point, with the result that many thousands of our fellow citizens are put to the greatest inconvenience and trouble in getting to work. I feel that situation very much every night as I listen to these wretched bombardments.
With regard to goods traffic, one of the difficulties of the railway position is congestion, and one of the reasons for that is the wagon position. The wagons are not being sent back as they ought to be; there is no shortage of wagons, but they are not being emptied as they ought to be When there is talk about a shortage of coal in London, a position in which six trucks are waiting for every one that is discharged per day is not good enough. More will have to be discharged in all the yards in London, and the same is true with regard to supplies. If people will not empty their trucks and turn them back, we shall get, as we are getting, congestion in the ports. I must ask people to remember that a wagon is not sent to them as a store but exists to transport goods, and if it is kept as a store it definitely delays the war effort. All we can do today is to make an appeal and ask everybody whose function and duty it is to unload, to do so, and to free the wagon. We have appealed before, and if they will not do this, then some very drastic action by the Government will be necessary to compel it, for it strikes at the lifeblood of our war effort.

Mr. Bernays: Can my right hon. and gallant Friend tell us whether the demurrage charges are being enforced?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: The demurrage charges have not been enforced as much as they could have been, and in many cases relating to Government supplies it is only a matter of transferring the money from one book to another. But I contemplate introducing something drastic of that kind in a very short time, and most people are going to pay up.
I wonder whether at a later date, when the House is a little less busy with Government business, a Motion could be put down which would enable us to have a Debate in secret. There are many

things I would like to tell the House. I know that information would not go any further and would not help the lot of the travelling public, but I would like my fellow Members of Parliament to know some of the troubles and some of the things that have happened in London, the reason this or that has been closed, the dangers we are running and are prepared to risk. I would like one day to tell that story, but I cannot do so in Public Session. It is a curious thing, after having been for many years a private Member of a tough type and being able, when I felt energetic, to get up and criticise the Government as well as I could, to be asked one afternoon to see the Prime Minister, and next day to find myself a Privy Councillor and in charge of the Ministry of Transport. Well, that sounds all right, but it is quite evident to me after a month in office that this is a job where there is nothing which occurs, which anyone in London does not entirely count as my own fault. To get over these difficulties you must either be a conjurer or supernatural. Conjuring I must leave to my hon. Friend, and as for me, certainly I am not supernatural.

Mr. Ammon: I think everyone of us will feel that we have every reason to congratulate the right hon. and gallant Gentleman on his appointment, and we may certainly look for something less than conventional treatment in regard to the problems he has been called upon to consider. He paid tribute to our Victorian ancestors with side whiskers, top hats, enterprise and resource. He possesses them all, except, perhaps, the side whiskers, and he has given us some indication that he is likely to continue showing enterprise and resource in his work. It is very difficult, knowing that he has only just gone to the Ministry, to blame him too heavily for some of the faults which have occurred. On the question of nationalisation he has, at least, admitted that it must be either all or none. I do not know whether before he finishes he may not find himself introducing a Bill for the nationalisation of the railways.
There are one or two things I wish to bring before him, not so much by way of criticism, but rather to ask him to bear them in mind. I wonder he did not refer to our old friends the widows and orphans, without whom a Debate in this


House on railways is never complete. I am glad to know, however, that the hon. Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) did not forget them, although the orphans must be grown up by now, and the widows must have married long ago. For at least 50 years that argument has always been brought in.
If no mention was made of the men and their work, it is not because the House is unmindful of them. Everyone of us must have wondered and marvelled at the courage and tenacity of our railwaymen who are running the railways in spite of all the difficulties and dangers of the present time. They do it splendidly, and, as has been said, the dangers are very real. But the right hon. and gallant Member did not meet my hon. Friend's point in regard to revenue. He simply said it was not in the Agreement, but that is no reason why he should not consider whether revenue should be taken into account. There is an offset to some extent to what he said in regard to the prices we had to pay after the last war for the use of the railways. The railway companies are assured of a very fair minimum based on something which is not altogether borne out by the trade they have been doing. Although the extra fares sound small, 1d. here or 2d. there, they represent a considerable increase in the cost of living of the ordinary person. It has been pointed out that on the average it will mean about £15 a year on the expenses of the workers who go in and out of London, and about £8 8s. for those in other towns. That sort of thing is bound to lead to a measure of inflation. Such measures are simply pursuing that vicious spiral of prices and lead us nowhere in improving conditions. It is no good pursuing the argument and criticisms which have been levelled against the railways, because this Debate was supposed to be concerned with the Railway Rates Agreement. Certainly that matter has not been made clear to the public and we may expect the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to give us a fuller discussion at a later date when he has been in office a little longer.
In regard to the running of the railways, it seems to have been singularly imprudent to bring in an alteration of time-tables in the way it has been done, causing a tremendous amount of work for the railway clerks and long queues at the railway

stations. Time-tables have been entirely altered, there are long queues of exasperated people held up at the stations, and the railway clerks who are shorthanded are now faced with this burden. It does seem a rather short-sighted action. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman must have heard something of the criticisms which have been made in regard to the delivery of coal, a problem with which my hon. Friend the Minister for Mines is being troubled. I only say this, because it seems that the buck is being passed from one Department to another. It is stated that the Ministry of Transport is responsible for it. Manchester, in particular, is in a poor way in regard to reserves of coal. I have raised complaints about the position in London until I have become sick and tired of it and have given it up. On the other hand we are told it is not the fault of the railway companies, but all the same I ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to look into it. There is something in what he has already said about the holding-up of trucks. I have seen trucks held up for weeks in railway sidings in London. They are full of coal and therefore are preventing coal being brought down. I can tell the right hon. and gallant Gentleman where they are, and perhaps he will look into the problem and see whether anything can be done. We have thousands of miners out of work partly because we are unable to move the coal which has already been won.
The right hon. and gallant Member has said that they would sooner take over the railways as a going concern, but he must bear in mind that directly that is done there will be economies in administration, in the directorate and other things. Having said that, I congratulate the right hon. and gallant Gentleman on the fact that he has early learnt the attributes of a Minister—he has evaded the criticisms which my hon. Friend made in opening the Debate. He has shown himself an apt pupil in that way, and I hope that when he has been a little longer in office we shall have an opportunity of hearing his breezy defence of his Department. We wish him the best of luck in his endeavours.

Mr. G. Strauss: I should like to make two brief comments on the interesting and lively speech we have heard from the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. He speaks always in


such a disarming way that he can get away with almost anything, but I feel that one part of his speech will give rise to considerable and widespread disappointment. It is the statement he made that the present Railways Agreement is not to be fundamentally revised, and that only such part may be altered as concerns the provision of compensation for war damage. It had been generally hoped among, I think, most Members, and in many quarters outside, that the Agreement had proved itself fundamentally so bad and so unfair, and subject to so much criticism from so many quarters, that when the Government came to revise that particular part which deals with war compensation, they were going to take the opportunity of revising the remainder. Now we are told that is not going to take place. Therefore we are going to have with us this appalling Agreement, which, not only Members who take a Socialist point of view but the financial Press also, regard as grossly unfair to the public.
Its most unfair aspect is that the railway companies can demand, and are entitled to ask and obtain, higher fares if they can prove that costs have gone up. They do not have to take into account the increased revenue arising from increased traffic. We know there is very considerably increased traffic from the Government which may get less or increase; but that vital fact is entirely ignored under the present Agreement, and, therefore it is an extremely unfair one. There are many alternative forms of agreements which could be suggested, but for myself I wish to record my regret that the main structure is to remain as it is. Inevitably sooner or later there will be demands for further increases of fares, and these increases will have to be granted as the Agreement now stands. Every time an increase is allowed the inflationary spiral is given another kick upward, and makes the financial situation of this country worse. I think it is very unfortunate that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman did not do, as I hope he would like to have done, and make fundamental and drastic alterations in the Agreement when he had the opportunity of doing so.
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman said he was so busy with day-to-day affairs of administration that he has not

had time, and is unlikely to have time in the near future, to consider the great problems of nationalisation and unification of the transport systems of this country except in an academic way. I appreciate that, and I think he can put up a very good case for it, but I beg him not to let it remain an academic problem throughout the length of the war, and that as soon as he is able to master the immediate problems which confront him, he will turn his mind to this matter. It is not just the question of the efficiency of the railways, nor is it a question of whether the 1.30 train leaves punctually and arrives punctually, but it is something which is much broader. Many of us believe that on that changed economy to which we must look forward after the war—the planned economy of this country, which is bound to be very different from the economy which existed before war broke out—the prosperity of this country will very largely depend. After the war the planning, co-ordination and unification of the railways is absolutely essential for that end, and it is very important that the best brains in the industry, and the brains and the very great energy of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, should be devoted as soon as possible to studying that very important problem.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Montague): I did not expect to be called upon to wind up this Debate quite so early and to follow my right hon. and gallant Friend so soon. However, I should like to refer to one or two points associated with the question of the Railways Agreement and the issues involved. I was no more responsible for the Railways Agreement than my right hon. Friend, and I am not concerned now with going into detail in the direction of defending it, but I think it is only reasonable to point out that, after all, it was a negotiated Agreement, and some part, at any rate, of the criticism which has been put forward in reference to it is to be met, if met at all, in the fact that the nation has taken over control of the railways for the period of the war, and for war purposes, and has made, by negotiation, an Agreement with the railway companies.
I think much that was said by the opener of the Debate was, by implication, unintentionally misleading in that it was implied that, if certain things had not


been done or if certain changes were made in the Agreement, the whole problem of fares and freight charges would be resolved. I think that is the crux of the question. The hon. Member who spoke last was in an earlier period of the Debate wry insistent upon the fact that he did not stand for confiscating the railways. This position was necessarily accepted as the basis of any form of nationalisation of the railways. He has, in dealing with the problem in his speech, indicated that in his view the only way in which it would be possible to avoid the anomalies that we are debating—the increase of fares and charges and the raising of the spiral of inflation—would be by nationalisation. If we examine the financial terms of the Agreement, we find that the nation, in return for the right to control the railways during the war, has guaranteed to the companies an income of £40,000,000. In addition to that, the companies can keep another £3,500,000. There is a special reason for this, into which I need not enter now, connected with the London Passenger Transport Board. Up to £68,000,000 the amount is divided between the railway companies and the State, which means that the companies can earn approximately £56,000,000 in the course of a year. That is the limit of the companies' possibility of earnings, and it would be very desirable to understand, without taking sides on the issue at all, that to talk, as the "Daily Herald" does to-day, about excessive profits, is rather beside the mark in view of the actual facts of the Agreement.
The railways are earning a little over the £40,000,000 guaranteed by the State. In other words, the State is not called upon to carry out the guarantee. The £40,000,000 represents a fraction under 3 per cent. on the total capital involved. If the railway companies earned their £56,000,000, it would amount to a fraction over 4 per cent. I am not going to argue the theoretical and ideological question whether rent, interest and profit can be defended. I think hon. Members opposite know where I stand on the Socialist issue. In the first place, as has been recognised by every speaker, it is of little use to nationalise railways alone if you want to solve the problems of transport. It has to be a wide thing, embracing canals, roads, air, every kind of transport in the country, because they

are all interlocked. They more or less impinge upon each other in every direction to a degree never before experienced in the history of transport. This is a very highly complicated affair. It is something that cannot be done merely by waving a magic wand. You have to get down to details and to financial settlements in nationalising and rationalising if you like, the whole of the transport of the country upon fair terms. If the Bill which Mr. Gladstone introduced in 1844 had been carried and its financial terms implemented, we should have had the railways publicly owned for very nearly 25 years and paid for lock, stock and barrel out of the expanded revenue. That was not done. But you cannot nationalise railways or other forms of transport without a settlement, unless you are talking about confiscation, unless you are going to take them right over without any kind of financial settlement whatever.

Mr. Lathan: I hope the hon. Gentleman will not regard this interruption as necessarily antagonistic, but surely he will not contend that the unremunerative capital of the railways should be taken into account in any assessment of the price that has to be paid in the nationalisation process. I wondered whether, when he was quoting those figures of 3 and 4 per cent., he had the large amount of unremunerative capital in his mind.

Mr. Montague: If I had not, I have it in mind now that I am reminded of the fact, but there is not nearly so much unremunerative capital to-day as there was. A great amount of the dead wood has been already cut out, and I doubt very much whether, even allowing for the unremunerative capital and existing dead wood, it would make very much difference to the immediate problem, the increased freight charges and fares.

Mr. Lathan: Will my hon. Friend permit me to point out to him and to the Minister that one of the forms of criticism that they will have to face is that the steps they are now taking in regard to this Agreement and in other directions will tend to make the public pay more heavily than they ought in the event of nationalisation or any other form of public control and ownership?

Mr. Montague: My hon. Friend knows where I stand on issues of that character, and when we get down, as I presume we shall have to sooner or later, to a co-ordinated system of transport, I do not think my hon. Friend will find me failing in a recognition of the importance of issues of that character. The argument that has been produced to-day is really an argument for a Government subsidy and nothing else. If we nationalised transport to-morrow, we would still have to make some financial settlement. I do not think it is conceivable that we could make a financial settlement that did not involve at least the 3 per cent. on the £40,000,000 which the Government guarantee involves under the agreement.

Mr. G. Strauss: Why is that so? The holders of war stock are getting 2½ per cent. Why should holders of railway shares be given a Government guarantee of 3 per cent., assuming there is only £40,000,000 profit?

Mr. Montague: I said assuming there is £40,000,000 profit. There can be only £56,000,000, and that represents a fraction over 4 per cent. I am not defending railway interests. It is not my point to do that. I want to get down to facts and to insist on the importance of understanding what the actual position is with regard to this Agreement and the railways. If the difference between us is a difference between 2½ per cent. and 3 per cent., or even 4 per cent., I do not think that difference matters in the argument I am putting forward now. That is, that we do not solve the problem of increased freight charges and passenger fares merely by saying that we will nationalise or alter the Agreement, unless we are prepared to face the necessity for a Government subsidy to make up the difference. That is the important fact which, it seems to me, is not recognised.

Mr. Lathan: Or there might he arrangements of the kind that existed in the last war.

Mr. Montague: My right hon. and gallant Friend has dealt with that point, and I think it will be generally recognised that it would be disastrous for any such post-war position to be arrived at as was reached after the last war. There, then, is the position with regard to the Agreement and its effects upon freight charges.

There does not seem to be much prospect of the railways realising the £56,000,000. There are many reasons why, but we can only deal with what the railways are making now, which is a little over £40,000,000. If it is to be said that that amount should be applied to stabilising the charges at what they have been up to now and preventing them going up, then you are denying any kind of return to the railway companies for the services they are rendering to the State. I do not think that is practical politics. At any rate, let us recognise that either that is proposed or there is proposed a Government subsidy to make up the difference.
That brings us to the only other question I want to deal with, that is, alleged inflation. I doubt whether inflation is the right word. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) spoke in earnest terms and was much concerned about the vicious spiral. I do not know whether he would as a business man carry out the practice of passing on increased costs of production to the consumer. I should imagine that he would, and I do not know why the railway companies should be expected to act otherwise, apart from any question of Government subsidy. It is not only a spiral, but it is also a vicious circle, and what is suggested is that that circle shall be cut at the point of transport. In Eastern mythology a circle is regarded as a symbol of eternity. There is no beginning and no end to inflation. If you look at it from another point of view and alter the symbol, and say there are links in the chain, surely transport has as much right to call itself the last link, as anyone else has to call it the first link, because the railways cannot increase charges until well after there has been the increased costs which have made the increased charges necessary. There is always a lag.
There is a considerable lag at the present time, and I do not see why, from the point of view of theory—and there is a great deal of indignation expressed against the railways on this point—we should say that the railways are responsible for the inflationary movement. The whole position is responsible for that movement, and there may he a useful argument in favour of a Government subsidy in order to prevent the inflation getting worse. That is a different thing from blaming the railway companies for


inflation or even blaming the Agreement for it. It is, I am afraid, part of the inevitable results of war-time conditions. If it is to be a question of Government subsidy let us understand that, before taunts are thrown either at the railway companies or anyone else about the position as it exists.
I fail to see where profiteering of the railways comes in. The railways are doing a very fine public service at the present time, and although I am personally in favour of as rapid an organisation of a national transport board as anyone in the House, we must not forget that, as long as we have a system where private investment of capital is necessary to the maintenance of that system, so long as the system is tolerated, and so long as the nation is satisfied with that system, then, if we use private capital, we must expect to pay for the use of it. Putting all theoretical objections on one side, that is the practical position in front of us in reference to the railways. Even in Russia—the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) is not present, or I would hesitate to refer to the subject—we find that about £100,000,000 a year is paid in interest to the original foreign investors of private capital which was necessary for the purpose of developing the industries of Russia upon modem lines. One hundred million pounds a year is equal to 3 per cent. interest upon about £3,300,000,000 of capital, and I should imagine that we could quite well use £3,300,000,000 of capital to nationalise transport and do a lot of other things in this country without repudiating recognition of the fact that so long as you depend upon private investment you must recognise the right of investors to a charge upon the results.
The reason why it pays Russia to do that is the reason why it would pay this country to do the same kind of thing, and has paid it in the past, and that is, that out of expanded revenue you can amortise all charges, with the result of eventual public ownership and the eventual complete socialisation of whatever industry is concerned. But there is the position: and I put it to hon. Members from the other side who have taken part in this Debate that it is no use playing fast and loose with a principle. Either you recognise the right to compensation on the part of private capital or you do not. If you do recognise it you must take it into account in any kind of settle-

ment that is made either public control or national ownership. There are objections and I do not deny them. But by and large that is really the position of the Railway Agreement at the present time. The Agreement was a negotiated one. It would be necessary to reach some settlement whatever was done in respect of the railways, and there is no other method except that of making the whole community pay the costs of transport charges.
Let me point out that when we are talking about these extra costs we are not really talking about expenditure. We are not talking about costs as such, but about war costs—quite a different thing. The railways might find it convenient to employ 100 or 1,000 more men and that would not be an increased cost. But if the wages of those men go up it is an increased war cost, because it is part of the inflationary spiral or circle. That is the position of the case, and I thought I would take the opportunity of winding up this Debate to endeavour to bring the issue down to the practical facts. If one has done that, it is a contribution to really clear-cut thought upon the subject; and one hopes that as soon as possible we shall get some really sound communal and fair and practical solution of this vast problem of transport, which is, indeed, the key of all our industrial and social problems.

Orders of the Day — ARMED FORCES PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

Miss Ward: I very much regret having to raise with my hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions a matter of dissatisfaction which I feel with the administration of his Department, because he is always so kind and helpful when one brings any cases to him in private, and I also have the privilege of serving on the War Services Grants Committee which operates under the control of his Department, but I find that in regard to one important point of administration very grave dissatisfaction exists, at any rate in my part of the world. I feel that I ought to raise with him publicly the question whether it would not be possible to have an inquiry into the operation of the means test in relation to the granting of pensions to dependants of sons who have been killed in the war. I have noticed that some pressure has been exercised upon His Majesty's Government by the


trade unions and other organisations of the Opposition to the late Government, and that an inquiry has been held into the household means test in relation to the granting of allowances to the unemployed, and I thought it would be appropriate if my hon. Friend would institute an inquiry into the operation of the household means test in relation to the grant of pensions to dependants of those killed in the war.
In my constituency I have been into the homes of people who have lost their sons in the war. When I had a few minutes' conversation with my hon. Friend on this subject the other day he seemed to indicate that he had not had a great deal of critical correspondence on the subject from dependants affected by the death of their sons in the war, but I do not think it is entirely right to go by correspondence, because my constituents are very sparing in the correspondence they send to me. I have always been in the habit of visiting very regularly, almost street by street, any of my constituents whom I believe to be in difficulty or in trouble, and while it is almost true to say that I have had no correspondence in this subject, whenever I have gone into their homes I have heard great bitterness expressed at the administration of this particular class of pension. Thus I feel that I am justified in raising this matter publicly.
The House will be aware that the grant of a pension to dependants is based on need. I should say in passing that in my constituency I have not found a single case in which a dependant's pension has been granted. When an application for a pension is made, a note generally goes from my hon. Friend's Department to say that the applicant has established his right to a pension, which means that there was a contribution from the serving son to the home, but that no pension is payable on account of the death of that son unless the family fall into financial or pecuniary difficulties, and that then an application should be made to the Ministry of Pensions and the position will be reconsidered. Of course it is obvious that there must be some merit in this arrangement, in that where there has been no contribution to the upkeep of the parents or the home, and

no allotment made, the parents will still be able to apply for a pension should they fall on evil days.
I am pretty good at explaining Government policy to my constituents, but I can say without fear of contradiction that I have never found any task so difficult as to explain to parents whose sons have been killed in this war that in spite of the fact that the son was making, sometimes, quite a considerable contribution to the household it is only if they fall on evil days, when in any event the State would have to accept responsibility, that they will be entitled to a pension from the Government.
I want to quote one or two cases. I have been unable to find on what basis a need pension is payable. I am thinking now of a boy who went down in a submarine. He had made a very handsome contribution to his mother. She was already a widow, drawing a widow's pension. She had two daughters, each earning under £1 a week, and, of course, the girls had to pay travelling expenses out of that money. She had one son of 15, an office boy, earning something like 8s. a week. He also had to pay his travelling expenses out of the money. The woman had had a small legacy out of which she had purchased a house, and she was still making up the balance of the house-purchase money by paying a weekly contribution to a building society. In addition, of course, she had to pay rates.
As her household income stands at present, it is impossible for that woman to remain in that house unless she obtains some kind of recognition of the contribution that was paid from her son during the time that he was in the Service. She has received the usual little note from the Minister saying that the fact has already been established that she is entitled to a pension, but that it will be payable only if she falls on evil days. Would the Minister like to go and explain to her that she must leave her home, which she has bought, and go to live in a smaller house, that, when the years pass and those two young daughters marry, perhaps, and leave home, and the boy grows up and takes on responsibilities of his own, she will be left with a widow's pension of 10s. a week and His Majesty's Government will be graciously pleased to accept responsibility for her and make a contribution to her home? I found the greatest


difficulty in explaining to her the basis on which pensions are granted to dependants.
I would quote another case, where the son, at considerable sacrifice on the part of the parents, obtained a commission in the Merchant Navy. During the time the boy was serving his period of apprenticeship the father fell out of employment. These people are a very worthy and thrifty family. In order that the boy need not be deprived of his chance in life the parents kept him, out of their savings. Finally, after, I think, four years, he obtained his commission, and an extremely good job with a first-class shipping company. He made a handsome contribution to the home because he wanted, if he could, to enable his parents to put back into their savings the money which they had spent on him. After nine months of war, he was torpedoed and drowned. The father at the present moment is employed as a driver to the Admiralty. The same answer goes to them, that if the father should lose his employment, if he falls on evil days, if sickness overtakes him and he is incapacitated for work, he will be entitled to a pension from the State, but that, at the present moment, he is not entitled to a pension from the State. There is that man, having spent all his savings, and the family, feeling extremely bitter against the Government, because they say: "Have they no regard for what we tried to do for our son? Now he has sacrificed his life for his country, and there is nothing for it."
I take another case of a widowed mother in which the son was making a contribution before he was called up. Out of that contribution to the home another son was being trained to become a chemist. That mother also is drawing a widow's pension. There is certainly an income going into the home, but it is a very small one. There are other earning members of the family, but they are not in a position to keep up the payment required in order that the younger might qualify in the profession in which his brother hoped to qualify. I did put up that special case, but again a letter has gone from the Ministry of Pensions to say that no pension is payable. I would quote another type of case. It relates to a girl in a miner's family. One son went down on one of our naval ships.

The father is a pitman and, from time to time, he works short time. He is in rather frail health and is in receipt of National Health Insurance benefit. Taking his income over a period of months he may qualify for a pension or he may not, but, up to the moment, he has failed to establish his right to a pension, in the eyes of the Minister. It is a difficult position for a man to be continually writing to the Department and saying, "Now that I am drawing National Health Insurance benefit am I entitled at this moment to a pension?" Or, "Now that I am working short time for a period of three or four months during the summer, am I entitled to a pension?" He is employed at a colliery which produces for the home trade. That kind of person does not bother Government Departments as much as I do, and once he gets turned down he thinks that that is the end. I find it extremely difficult to believe that when the Statutory Committee considered on what basis dependants' pensions should be granted they went really fully into the question whether the method which was decided upon would work out in practice. Theory is one thing and practice is another.
I want to get on to one of my pet theories for one brief moment. I have always understood—I think I have understood it from my hon. Friend and certainly from a good many other Ministers—one of the very few things to which I take exception in our democratic system. I dislike intensely the fact that Ministers often have to stand up in this House and defend actions or policies which are being supported by their Departments although, behind the scenes, they have fought a tremendous battle with the Treasury, and lost. I dislike the Treasury psychology intensely. I dislike the method, and I would very much like to see—although I cannot imagine it will ever come my way—the applications that have been made to the Treasury from my hon. Friend's Department, the War Office, or the Ministry of Health for what appear to be fair and honest policies, but which have been turned down by the Treasury.
I would here take the opportunity to pay a warm tribute to the regional department of my hon. Friend's office. Whenever I go there I have the greatest


possible support from the officials, who are always willing to investigate any case. They are most helpful and do everything they possibly can. They are there, and have human contact with these problems; but here sit those Treasury people. I would like to take some of them round the streets in my constituency and make them explain to the people what they are doing—but not to me, because I say exactly what I think. I am prepared to fight for these people until the death, but I should like to have Treasury people there with me to give explanations.
I must not continue for very long on this particular topic, but I would say this. In this particular form of administration, in this particular decision that was taken by the Statutory Committee which advised the Minister, no account whatsoever has been taken of the reduction in the standard of the home. It does not matter what the contribution was. It is true to say that it might not be justifiable to ask the State to accept responsibility for a single man living at home for the rest of time. I recognise that a son is only a son until he gets a wife. But in this country sons have a deep affection for their homes, and many of them have taken on towards their parents responsibilities which do not run on for years but which have a limit. There are very many sons who have been helping parents to buy their homes for their old age. When the home is bought the son's responsibility ceases. From what I see of the present method of granting pensions to dependants, none of those obligations or responsibilities are ever accepted by the hon. Gentleman. In fact what the hon. Gentleman, on the advice of his Committee, has said is: "Only when you have no other means of support, only"—as somebody very bitterly expressed it to me—"when you are down and out, can you come to the State and get a pension." There are hundreds of thousands of parents in this country who have sacrificed their sons and who will never be down and out; I am very glad to know that they will not, but the fact is that when you suddenly take from them a contribution on which they have relied, in very many instances you seriously interfere with the comfort and the standard of the home.
We all have to make sacrifices—we have been told it so often—and sacrifices will

be demanded of us. That may be so, but in relation to war allowances, in relation to the operations of the War Service Grants Committee, so long as the son is alive we try to maintain the standard within reason. Yet when the son is taken away the only standard is "If you are in need." What I resent so bitterly—and I know my constituents resent it very bitterly—is that in any event if one was in need the State would accept responsibility, and there is no contribution from the wealth of this country to those whose sons have made the supreme sacrifie. I am astounded. I have been round home after home where husbands and sons have been lost and I have never heard one word of bitterness. In fact the whole spirit is: "We can bear it if we win the war." We all know that the spirit of this country is magnificent, but I want to take this opportunity of telling the hon. Gentleman that the one tiny bit of bitterness which I do detect comes from the type of persons whom I have been describing.
I know that perhaps to-day I am only one voice speaking, but I believe I have some small understanding of human psychology, and I know that if this war goes on and cases of this kind are multiplied by hundreds and thousands—we pray that it may not be so, but no one can tell what the future may bring—the day will come when the whole of the pressure of this House of Commons will be exerted towards getting an alteration of this particular type of pension. I ask the hon. Gentleman now to institute an inquiry; I do not mind how he makes it or in what direction he makes it, but if he wants any evidence I am certain that many hon. Members will supply it to him. I ask him to see whether the dependants of sons who have been killed in this war are being fairly treated, and if not I should like to go with him to the Treasury and demand that the Treasury does the right thing by those people, and now, without a fight.

The Minister of Pensions (Sir Walter Womersley): May I thank the hon. Lady for introducing this subject, for this reason, that many hon. Members may be under the same misapprehension as she is about the whole subject, and therefore it is perhaps fitting that I should take the opportunity which does not often come my way of explaining what my Department is doing in this direction.


The hon. Lady has paid a tribute to the members of my staff in that region in which her constituency happens to be situated, and I thank her very much indeed for that, because I have tried to instil into the minds of all my regional officers the absolute necessity of treating all cases brought to their notice with sympathy and with a desire to help to make a case good when it is a claim for a pension or an injury allowance. I am glad to know that they are carrying out the instructions that I have given.
Before I deal specifically with this question, may I make one reference to the Treasury? I do not agree with the hon. Lady that the Treasury are such hard-backed people as she evidently thinks they are. I have had to approach the Treasury time and time again since I took over the office of Minister of Pensions, and I am bound to say that whenever I have been able to put before them a really sound case I have not found them lacking in sympathy and in a desire to help. When I have had to make any application to them on behalf of parents, as I have had to do, I have found them quite in agreement with the suggestions I have put forward, and they have been prepared to find the money to pay. In these days—and I want hon. Members to realise this before I get down to the details of this particular part of my work—we are dealing with a problem so vast that it is almost impossible even for the Treasury to form any estimate of what the ultimate cost will be to this nation. We are not dealing merely with the Army, the Navy and the Air Force at the moment. My Department is responsible for those three Services and for the Civil Defence Services with a personnel of over 1,000,000 people who to-day are just as much in the front line as the members of the other Services and who at the moment are indeed bringing more claims against my Department than the Services themselves. Then I have the Mercantile Marine and the fishermen. They were not under my Department in the last war. There is the whole of the civilian population of the country—45,000,000 of people—and now added to that is the Home Guard. [Interruption.] I was pointing out the extent of the responsibility which my Department had in connection with the present war, and that whatever concessions I was able to make on behalf of those who are serving in the three fighting Services I

must, of necessity, extend to the other Services that are under my control. The House will realise why that is so necessary. In this war the civilian population, the Mercantile Marine and the Civil Defence services are as much in the front line as any of the fighting Services. There has been a good deal of misapprehension about what is known as a needs test. This is not in any way parallel with unemployment assistance or other benefits of the same nature, to which the means test commonly applies, and in connection with which there are certain grievances which are, I hope, to be remedied very shortly.
It would be as well if I briefly explained the system under which we are working, so that hon. Members may understand the difference. The provision for parents' pensions in the Great War has often been cited to me by hon. Members as being somewhat ideal; but when that provision is explained to them, I think they usually find that it was not so ideal as they thought. In the Royal Warrant of 1919 the provision for parents' pension fell under three heads. The first rested solely on pre-war dependency. The extent to which it was adjudged that the parents were dependent on their sons before, was the basis upon which they were paid pensions. That was abandoned because it did not work equitably. The next condition was what was known as a flat rate pension, of 5s. a week. The parent of any young man who lost his life in the war was entitled to that pension.
That did not work well, because in many cases the parents were receiving this 5s. a week, having it included in their Income Tax assessment, and paying it back to the Government. To a person in need 5s. a week was not much, and to a person with several thousands a year it was a mere nothing. The abandonment of that system has enabled me to provide a far better pension for those in need. The money that was being paid out to people who did not require it, is now being paid to those in need of it. The third condition was based on the parent's need and incapacity for self-support. A Select Committee of this House in 1919 went very thoroughly into the whole of the pensions provisions. One of their strongest recommendations was that these three conditions should be wiped away


altogether, and that all parents' pensions should in future be based on need:
need, broadly interpreted as the reasonable expectation of what the son would have done if he had survived.
The first two classes of pensions were abolished 20 years ago, and the amended pension, based on the need of the parent, substituted. For a long period that system has been in operation. I have looked up the records, and I cannot find that there has been any great agitation against the condition then laid down. I found, when I brought in my first Warrant in 1939 and inserted this provision, that there was a good deal of criticism of the term "incapacity for self-support." In interpreting that, one had to establish the fact that either the parents were too old or too infirm to work. "Incapacity for self-support" did not mean that a person was out of employment. In such a case, he might be perfectly capable of self-support if he had the opportunity. During a time of trade depression the parent did not qualify for the pension under this condition. When it was decided to resuscitate the Committee, strengthened by additional members, I considered very carefully the conditions under which parents' pensions should be granted. We have had two naval disasters, which aroused tremendous sympathy throughout the country. Many young men were included in the personnel of those two ships, and we had a batch of applications, which had to be turned down because of these words "incapacity for self-support." My committee advised me—and I agreed with them—that the Warrant of 1939 should be amended, and it was amended in the following way. We abolished altogether the test of incapacity for self-support and thereby—and that is the chief point of the criticism against the system then in operation—embodied in the amended Warrant a different provision. I want the House carefully to note this. It was that
in determining need regard should be had to the extent of the support the deceased son gave before and during his war service, and might reasonably have been expected to continue, or, where he did not so give what he might have been expected to give had he survived.
As regards the latter portion, it was felt—and evidence was produced to justify that feeling—that there would be many

cases—and there are many cases—where parents were not in a position of need and the boy had therefore not made an allotment, his pay being little enough for his own needs. Therefore, if we debarred that parent or parents from receiving a pension simply because there had been no contribution by the son during his lifetime, we might be doing a great injustice, because the parents later on might fall on evil times, and if the son had survived they would naturally have looked to him to give help in carrying on the household. So we really took up the position of the boy himself, and I think that that is the best way in which we can do it. Let me detail to the House the effect of these changes.

It being the hour appointed for the interruption of Business, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Question again proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Boulton.]

Sir W. Womersley: I was about to show the effect of this change from the 1939 Warrant to the amended Warrant. We have made a complete review of all the cases that were then put up to us, and most of them had been rejected. This review was initiated by the Ministry itself. We did not wait for a fresh application from claimants. We had them all reviewed at once, with the result that in 470 cases an immediate award was made or an existing award was increased. In 717 cases, the applicants were informed that they had established their title, though their circumstances did not justify an immediate award. The full number of cases since the beginning of the present war in which awards have been made is, in round figures, 1,800, and the additional number in which title has been admitted is over 2,200. These figures, while big enough, are comparatively small to what we may expect, particularly if we base our calculation upon what happened in the Great War. I hope that we shall not have to provide, as we did in that war, for many hundreds of thousands, but if we have, I submit to the House that they will all be dealt with fairly and squarely, and that no one really in need will be refused pension.
Let me come to our method of deciding the need. We ascertain the needs of the parents and not of the household, and it


is a common experience that sons contribute to a parent's support to the extent of the need of that assistance. The first case that the hon. Lady mentioned was that of a widowed mother. One naturally expects that a son will contribute to the support of his widowed mother, and, therefore, it is that widowed mother that we take as an individual case. We determine the existence of need by reference to a certain standard of income, and, having assessed that need exists, we have to see how far it is being met or should reasonably be met by the immediate family of the parents. Even my hon. Friend will agree that we are not expected to take the place of the whole family. I could quote some remarkable cases. There is the case of a woman in the North of England with seven sons and one daughter. One son was killed in the war. The other sons are in good situations, one of them earning over £700 a year. There was not a penny piece being contributed from the six surviving sons, and, therefore, are we to assume that this one boy, if he had been alive, would have given to his mother as much as the six other brothers were entitled to give or should have given? We have to take into account the position of the man who is killed, and if he is an only son, we take the full responsibility, and if he is one of a family and they are in a position to make a contribution, we look to them to do their share. That is only fair to the taxpayers of this country. The State takes the place of the dead son or sons and makes a contribution such as one would expect that son or sons to have made in the circumstances then in existence.
I want it to be thoroughly understood—and I am sure the hon. Lady will realise this—that this is not a scheme of compensation or of social assistance in the ordinary way. It is a question of the State taking the place of the dead son or sons and seeing to it that a contribution is made where there is real need for a contribution on the lines one would have expected the son to have made. It is clear under the rules of the Warrant that is in existence that pensions can be granted to parents at the same time as they are receiving old age pensions. It is not a question of saying that you cannot have two State pensions in this case. A parent or parents receiving the old age pension

can be awarded this pension in addition, which surely is the fairest possible way of dealing with this matter. I am only too pleased personally to go into all the cases that are brought to my notice where it can be shown that there has been a mistake made by those in my Department who have to study them and make an award. There is not a case of which I know where there is real need but what has been met by my Department. I would have liked the hon. Lady to have done what she mentioned in the early part of her speech, and I thank her for what she said then. She found that if cases were brought to my notice I gave them personal and sympathetic consideration. I would have liked to have had the four cases she has quoted in the House to-day brought to my notice. I would have been only too pleased to have allowed the hon. Lady to have seen the papers and, if she liked, discuss the cases with me.

Miss Ward: I brought to the notice of my hon. Friend at least three of the cases I have quoted. Two of the cases have already been turned down. One case is still under consideration, and I hope after what my hon. Friend has said that I may be successful in obtaining the appeal. The other case under consideration has also been brought to the notice of my hon. Friend, and I have still not got a decision. On the basis of my knowledge of how pensions are granted, all the cases that I have quoted will be turned down by my hon. Friend, and that is my complaint.

Sir W. Womersley: It is a queer sort of complaint when the hon. Lady says she is sure they will be turned down. I do not know what faith she has in me and my judgment.

Miss Ward: Two of them have already been turned down.

Sir W. Womersley: At any rate, I have cases from the hon. Lady with me in the House at the present moment. One of these may be the first she mentioned, but I cannot identify the others. I had to get the papers from headquarters, and hon. Members know that Government Departments are not just at one's elbow to-day. However, I am going carefully into these cases.
I want to emphasise this: I am as anxious as anyone in this House to see that justice and fair play is handed out


to all those who have to suffer in this war, or may suffer. The position I have to face is of such gigantic proportions that I must, indeed, see to it that where the need is greatest the greatest assistance is given and that cannot be done if we go in for the system which operated so unsatisfactorily in the last war, namely, handing out pensions right and left without any consideration of need. My hon. Friend mentioned the fact that the Prime Minister had announced that the whole question of the means test was being thoroughly inquired into, that certain drastic alterations were to be made and that we could expect to have a Bill or a statement on this matter at a very early date. I know there is a Cabinet committee thoroughly considering the question and, personally, I am very glad that the inquiry is being made. I hope that as a result many difficulties that have arisen over the means test with regard to unemployment assistance will be wiped away. I am going to consider very carefully whatever the Government brings forward in the way of dealing with this matter and if I find that these new proposals in any way affect the position of parents I shall certainly alter them. At the moment I cannot see how they will

affect the position because we do not take into account, and never have done, matters connected with the means test. Ours is, all the time, a question of the individual need of the applicant. I repeat—indeed, I will make the pledge—that I will consider carefully the provisions that are brought forward and if I find that it means we are in any way administering our particular work differently from the Government's intentions as regards this other branch of Social assistance, then I shall alter the regulations to bring them into uniformity.
In conclusion, may I thank the hon. Lady for giving me the opportunity of saying what I have said to the House. I hope that my reply will receive as wide publicity as the hon. Lady's complaints because I feel that I am administering this particular form of pensions work fairly and squarely. I am prepared to stand by what I have done and I repeat again that if any hon. Member has any case where it appears that hardship exists, and will bring it to my notice, I will see that the regulations are stretched as far as they can go, although it is not in my power to break them.

Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.